Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

STANDING ORDERS (AMENDMENTS).

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I shall have to submit to the House several Amendments of Standing Orders, some of which are on the Paper to-day and some of which I shall set down for next week. Those which I submit to-day are entirely consequential Amendments arising out of legislation. They fall into two groups. The first group, dealing with Scottish legislation, arises from the fact that the Standing Orders have not been revised in that respect since the passing of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act of 1899, and these Amendments are to put the Standing Orders into agreement with that Act. The other group deals with legislation of the present Session establishing the Ministry of Health and substituting its jurisdiction for that of the Local Government Board.
Standing Order 4 read, and amended, in line 22, by leaving out the words "and Sheriff Clerks."
Standing Order 9 read, and amended, in line 4, by leaving out the word. "Edinburgh."
Standing Order 14 read, and amended, at the end, by leaving out the words "and Sheriff Clerks, as the case may be."
Standing Order 22 read, and amended, in line 11, by leaving out the words "and Scotland."
Standing Order 24 read, and. amended, in line 17, by leaving out the words "or in the office of the Principal Sheriff Clerk of every County in Scotland and where any County in Scotland is divided into districts or division, then also in the office of the Principal Sheriff Clerk, in or for each district or division"; in line 34, by
leaving out the words "or Sheriff Clerks"; and, in line 45. by leaving out the words "or Sheriff Clerk."
Standing Order 26b read, and amended, in line 10, by leaving out the words "if the river is in Scotland, at the office of the Secretary for Scotland."
Standing Order 27 read, and amended, in line 4, by leaving out the words "or Sheriff Clerk."
Standing Order 29 read, and amended, in line 31, by leaving out paragraphs (e) and (f).
Standing Order 33 read, and amended, in line 9, by leaving out the words "Local Government Board," and inserting the words "Ministry of Health" [instead thereof]; in line 10, by leaving out the words "Scotland or," and by leaving out the words "at the Office of the Secretary for Scotland or"; in line 13, by leaving out the words "as the case may be"; and, in line 71, by leaving out the words "or Scotland."
Standing Order 36a read, and amended, in line 8, by leaving out the words "Local Government Board," and inserting the words "Ministry of Health" [instead thereof].
Standing Order 38 read, and amended, in line 31, by leaving out paragraph (3); and, in line 53 by leaving out the words "as regards Scotland, the Secretary for Scotland."
Standing Order 57 read, and amended, in line 25, by leaving out the words "or with the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer on behalf of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, if the work is intended to be done in Scotland."
Standing Order 61 read, and amended, in line 11, by leaving out the words "and in the Office of the Sheriff Clerk of every County in Scotland"; in line 15, by leaving out the words "and where any County in Scotland is divided into districts or divisions then also in the Office of the Principal Sheriff Clerk in and for each district or division in which such alteration is proposed to be made"; and, in line 30, by leaving out the word "Edinburgh."
Standing Order 62 read, as amended, in line 14, by leaving out the word "Edinburgh."
Standing Order 64 read, and amended, in line 34, by leaving out the word "Edinburgh."
Standing Order 66 read, and amended, in line 43, by leaving out the word "Edinburgh."
Standing Order 158 read, and amended, in paragraph (A), line 41, by leaving out the words "the King's Remembrancer of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland"; and, in line 45, by leaving out the word "Scotland."
Standing Order 158a read, and amended, in paragraph (B). line 26, by leaving out the words "or the Court of Exchequer in Scotland"; and, in paragraph (C), line 106, by leaving out the words "or Edinburgh."
Standing Order 172 read, and amended, in line 7, by leaving out the words "Local Government Board," and inserting the words "Ministry of Health" [instead thereof].
Standing Order 184 read, and amended, in line 3, by leaving out the words "Scotland, or."
Standing Order 194b read, and amended, in line 42, by leaving out the words "Local Government Board," and inserting the words "Ministry of Health" [instead thereof]; and, in line 52, by leaving out the words "Local Government Board," and inserting the words "Ministry of Health" [instead thereof].
Standing Order 194d read, and amended, in line 5, by leaving out the words "Local Government Board," and inserting the words "Ministry of Health" [instead thereof].—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Granton Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWITZERLAND (BRITISH TRAVELLERS).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the vexation caused by measures now taken by the Swiss Government in regard to British travellers who are not
connected in any way with political movements; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of taking similar measures with regard to Swiss who may desire to enter England in the future?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): No complaints have come to my knowledge recently, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases lie has in mind I will see what action can be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH PRISONERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the negotiations for the exchange of British prisoners in the hands of the Soviet Government of Russia; through what channels the negotiations are being conducted; and how many British prisoners remain in the hands of the Soviet Government?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In putting this question may I explain to my hon. Friend that I would have addressed it to him, but when the question was drafted the Noble Lord in another place had not been appointed Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: In answer to the first part of the question, His Majesty's Government are endeavouring to negotiate an exchange, and it is proposed that a meeting will shortly take place for this purpose with representatives of the Soviet Government. The Danish Government have agreed to allow this conference to take place in Denmark, provided that the Soviet Government consent to certain conditions, which they have proposed. As regards the second part, the negotiations are being conducted by wireless until such time as a meeting between the representatives of His Majesty's Government and of the Soviet Government takes place. In answer to the third part, twenty-three officers and seventy-seven other ranks of the Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force are reported to be missing, believed prisoners; and besides these His Majesty's Government have received information that about seventeen British civilians have been imprisoned for a variety of reasons by the Soviet Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment this evening.

Colonel BURGOYNE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to ensure the proper treatment and feeding of our prisoners in the hands of the Bolsheviks; and how many of them have been captured in the recent operations on the various fronts?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: In reply to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, the Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Government was informed by wireless that Messrs. Lenin, Trotsky, and other persons concerned would be held strictly and personally responsible for the treatment of British prisoners of war, and of other British subjects in Russia. It has not been possible for His Majesty's Government to take any stops to ensure-the proper feeding of these prisoners since the departure of the Danish Red Cross Mission from Moscow, but it is understood that the Rev. Mr. North, the British chaplain, is able to administer a certain amount of relief. In reply to the second part, I would refer to the answer I have given to-day to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.

Mr. RAPER: May I ask if the British prisoners in the hands of the Bolshevists are allowed to communicate with their friends?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I replied in the negative.

Colonel NEWMAN: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will say how many officers and men of the British Russian Expeditionary Forces are at present prisoners in the hands of the enemy; has he been able to ascertain if the Soviet Government is observing the regulations of the Geneva or other conventions in their treatment of our prisoners; and has it been found possible for their relatives and friends to communicate with them?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: In reply to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I would refer to the answer I have given to-day to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. The answer to the second and third parts is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and, if so, what answers have been received to the Notes addressed to the neutral nations and Germany by the Supreme Council requesting co-operation in a virtual blockade of Soviet Russia; whether Allied naval forces are n fact carrying out a form of blockade; and whether a blockade has been legally declared and neutrals notified?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No answers have yet been received to the Note addressed to the neutral Governments and the German Government by the Peace Conference. The allied naval forces have instructions to turn back ships sailing to Russian Baltic ports. These measures do not constitute a blockade in the legal sense of the word, and no notification has been addressed to neutral Governments, other than that of which the terms have already been made public.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask my hon. Friend whether drugs ordered and paid for by the Soviet Government are still being refused admittance to Russia by our cruisers?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not familiar with the case. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put it down in the form of a question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Government aware that probably during this winter, owing to this blockade, 500,000 women and children will die of hunger?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No. I do not think there is any foundation for that statement.

REPRESENTATIVE IN GREAT BRITAIN.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Nabokoff is still representing any Russian Government in this country; how much money he or his Legation has received from this country since March, 1917; whether if he is no longer supported or recognised by the British Government, any successor to him has been appointed; if so, by whom, and who that successor is; and whether the Russian Embassy in Chesham Place is still occupied by a representative of any Russian Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first, third, fourth, and last questions is that Mr. Nabokoff has been succeeded by Mr. Sabline, who represents the Government of Admiral Koltchak and occupies the Russian Embassy in Chesham Place. As regards the second question, payments made to Mr. Nabokoff between March, 1917, and 31st March, 1919, when payments ceased, amount to £184,156 14s. 7d.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: By whom was that successor appointed?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I assume by Admiral Kolcthak, but perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of the question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was it not by M. Sazonoff?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I could nut answer that offhand.

UNOFFICIAL COMMITTEE.

Mr. RAPER: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if lie will consider appointing a Committee consisting of three or four Members of the house who have a knowledge of Russian affairs, political, social, and commercial, three or four men outside the House with similar knowledge, and two or three representatives of the Government Department dealing with Russian affairs, with a view to their advising the Government as to the best methods of furthering the political and commercial interests of, as well as tae social intercourse between, Great Britain and Russia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret that I cannot see my way to adopting the suggestion of my hon. Friend. If, however, an unofficial committee of the kind indicated were established, the Foreign Office would always be ready to give careful consideration to its opinions. In fact, at the present time Members of Parliament and others representing political and business interests have access to the Russian Department of the Foreign Office whenever they like, and their views are always carefully considered.

BRITISH MISSIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many British officers and men, respectively, are with the various missions in Russia, including members of the Royal Air Force?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE. (Mr. Forster): The figures are as follows:—

Siberia.

190 officers, 341 other ranks.

This Mission is in process of being reduced to about 100 all ranks.

South Russia.

356 officers, 1,102 other ranks.

Baltic States.

(1) Mission (soon to be largely reduced).

44 officers, 45 other ranks.

(2) A detachment of the Tank Corps, attached to the Mission, engaged in instructing Russians.

22 officers, 29 other ranks.

The withdrawal of this detachment has been ordered.

SUPPLIES (TRANSPORT).

Major M`KENZIE WOOD: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of ships, together with their tonnage, which are at present employed in carrying men or supplies to any part of Russia?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): I have been asked to reply. Two ships of a total gross tonnage of 10,362 are at present carrying personnel and supplies to a Baltic port. Four ships of a total tonnage of 3,202 are employed in the Black Sea, and stores are occasionally shipped by these from Constantinople to South Russian ports. About 500 tons of stores are being sent via Japan to Vladivostok.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether time hon. Gentleman contemplates any shortage of transport to bring back time-expired men from Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India?

ARMY SERVICE CORPS.

Mr. CROOKS: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are a number of men in the Army Service Corps at the remount depot, Swaythling, who are eligible for demobilisation but no progress is being made to secure their release; whether he is aware that Private A. E. Goy, No. 258285, D Squadron store, is a Derby man and eligible for demobilisation and that his old situation is waiting for him; that, in
spite of repeated requests from his employers, no steps have been taken towards this soldier's demobilization; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter?

Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries are being made in this case, and my right hon. Friend will be informed of the result as early as possible.

RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (RE-ADMISSION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Russian subjects who returned to Russia during the War under the convention with the Russian Government would be permitted to re-enter this country if they have wives and children here and nothing criminal is known against the men; and whether they will be allowed in if married to British-born women?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): These men went away from this country (in many cases leaving British-born wives behind them) rather than serve in the British forces; and the present rule is that they cannot be allowed to return to this country unless they can show that since leaving the United Kingdom they have served in some force fighting in the Allied cause. I cannot see my way at present to modify the rule.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of misery is being caused to these women through being separated from their husbands, and can he hold out no hope of their return?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot hold out any hope of men who deliberately left the country rather than serve in the British forces being allowed to return.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to support the deserted British-born wives and children of these men?

Mr. SHORTT: If we do, it is better than having them back again.

GENERAL DENIKIN'S ARMY.

Mr. SWAN: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that General Denikin's volunteer Army is carrying out a series of pogroms on a large scale in the Ukraine that there have been [...]massacres of Jews, notably at [...] Ekaterinoslav, and Krementchang,[...]
General Denikin's troops entered those towns; and whether he will immediately take steps to prevent any more British supplies of munitions or men being sent to help General Denikin's volunteers?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is that unofficial reports have been received by His Majesty's Government of pogroms in the places mentioned by the hon. Member, but investigation has so far failed to bring to light any information which would tend to substantiate these stories. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman really think there are no pogroms?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would respectfully impress on the hon. and gallant Member how extremely undesirable it is to make these unfounded statements.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How can the hon. Gentleman call these reports unfounded when they come from Jewish organisations which are in contact with people suffering by the pogrom, and especially as we have no representative there to test the facts of the case?

Sir P. MAGNUS: Were these pogroms carried out by men in General Denikin's volunteer Army, or by the Bolsheviks? Is there any evidence as to that?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As far as we know, there appears to be no foundation for these stories.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of sending a political representative to Russia to find out whether these charges are true or not?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will represent that to my Noble Friend the Secretary of State.

ALLIED GOVERNMENTS.

Mr. SWAN: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether it was with his sanction that on 21st February Mr. Philip Kerr sent a letter to Mr. Bullitt enclosing a note of the sort of conditions upon which it would be possible for the Allied Governments to resume once more normal relations with Soviet Russia, stating that they had no official significance and merely represented personal suggestions of the Prime Minister?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The answer to this question is in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has given attention to the evidence tendered by Mr. W. C. Bullitt when summoned before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate on 12th September; whether he authorised the Foreign Office to issue a statement that his evidence was a tissue of lies; whether he has now seen the official report of this evidence; whether the Government attitude towards it remains as stated by the Foreign Office; and whether he will make a statement on the subject?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first and third parts of this question arc in the negative. As regards the second part, the Prime Minister authorised the statement to which he adheres in regard to the report of Mr. Bullitt's evidence as it appeared in the Paris Press on the day following Mr. Bullitt's testimony, and he does not propose to make any further statement on the subject.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not examine Mr. Bullitt's evidence as now reported in full? Does he still maintain that it is a tissue of lies?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Extraordinary as it may seem to my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend has not personally read the report, but it has been examined for him, and he adheres to his statement that it is a tissue of falsehoods.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINN FEIN PROPAGANDA (UNITED STATES).

Mr. CLOUGH: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the active propaganda now being carried on in the United States by Sinn Feiners, with a view of influencing public opinion against this country by false and exaggerated statements; and whether any action is being taken to counteract the efforts of these agitators?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Opportunity is taken whenever possible to correct misapprehensions and to contradict false statements in relation to the action or policy of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROUMANIA (PETROLEUM RESOURCES).

Mr. SPOOR: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether this country is about to enter into an agreement with Roumania for the exploitation of her natural wealth; and whether the terms of the agreement will be made public?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The possibility of increased co-operation of British interests with Roumania in the development of her petroleum resources was discussed some time ago with the late Prime Minister of Roumania, but there have been no recent negotiations on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECH RAILWAY.

Mr. SPOOR: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an Anglo-American concern is negotiating with the Government at Prague for a twenty-five years' lease of the Czech railway?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any such negotiation. His Majesty's representative at Prague is being instructed to furnish information on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLDIER'S EFFECTS (PRIVATE A. G. FRENCH).

Captain BOWYER: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of Private Albert G. French, No. 12838, 7th Battalion Oxford and Bucks Light Infantry, who was reported missing on the 9th May, 1917, and since reported as supposed to have been killed on that date; is he aware that this man since the age of eighteen months was adopted by Mr. and Mrs. F. A. Smith, of 32, York Road, Stony Stratford, Bucks, who cared for him for twenty-two years, that he had no blood relatives known, that he was unmarried, that no will can be traced, but that his adopted parents are prepared to swear that he did make a will leaving all his effects to his adopted mother; and will he cause inquiries to be made into this case and enable Private French's foster parents to prove their claim?

Mr. FORSTER: I will have further inquiries made, and will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

CASES UNDER INQUIRY.

Major O'NEILL: 12 and 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether Private R. D. Graham, No. 154857, 5th Tank Brigade, Royal Army Service Corps (Mechanical Transport), has yet been demobilised; and, if not, can he say when this voluntarily enlisted soldier will be released; (2) whether he is aware that Private James Warwick Thomson, No. 180122, 1,032nd Motor Transport Company, Royal Army Service Corps, has been serving in the East for over three years without any leave; and can he say when this voluntarily enlisted soldier will be demobilised?

Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries are being made, and my hon. and gallant Friend will be informed of the result as early as possible.

VOLUNTARILY ENLISTED SOLDIERS.

Major O'NEILL: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to redeem the promise which he made that a preference in demobilisation would be given to voluntarily enlisted soldiers; and can he state the number of such men, apart from those who have re-engaged or enlisted since the termination of hostilities, still remaining in the Army?

Mr. FORSTER: It has always been the War Office policy to release wherever possible men who have served longest or who enlisted voluntarily, and I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the instructions governing demobilisation which have been issued from time to time, wherein specific provision is made for preferential treatment of voluntarily enlisted men. I regret that there are no figures available which would enable me to give the information asked for in the last part of the question. Any such men not yet demobilised are now included among those eligible for demobilisation.

Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for War specifically promised that definite
instructions should be sent out for the prior release of these voluntarily enlisted men at the end of last Session?

Mr. FORSTER: I think the promise my right hon. Friend gave has been redeemed.

Major O'NEILL: Is it not a fact that there still remain large numbers of voluntarily enlisted men in the Army?

Mr. FORSTER: I do not think my right hon. Friend promised that these men should be released within a given date, but as soon as possible, and that is being done.

Colonel L. WARD: Would it not be possible to arrange that men who volunteered and were rejected on medical grounds, and were subsequently conscripted should have the same privileges with regard to demobilisation as men who joined up voluntarily?

Mr. FORSTER: I will see if anything can be done in that direction.

BRICKLAYERS.

Major HURST: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the shortage in the supply of labour available for building houses, lie will consider the expediency of demobilising all soldiers with experience as bricklayers, provided that they undertake to work in that trade immediately upon demobilisation?

Mr. FORSTER: I understand that tie Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health have put forward certain proposals affecting the building trades, but I regret that at present I cannot authorise the release of the men referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend unless their release is provided for under current instructions. As I have already stated, all men who have not undertaken to continue in the Service are now eligible for demobilisation in their turn, and will be released as early as practicable.

Major NALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are three foremen bricklayers urgently required in Manchester who are engaged in a band at Aldershot? Is it not possible to expedite their release?

Mr. FORSTER: Preferential treatment of individuals- gives rise naturally to very strong feeling in the Army. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will not forget the condition of affairs that existed at the begin-
ning of this year, and he will remember we had to make very drastic changes in the system of demobilisation.

Mr. LAMBERT: Would it not be possible to give preferential release to those men who have employment waiting for them now?

Mr. FORSTER: That question has been put and answered over and over again. It was that very system that led to the difficulties which my right hon. Friend will remember in the early part of the year. We had to make very drastic and rapid changes in order to restore a feeling of satisfaction in the Army.

Mr. HOUSTON: Would it not be much better to release men who have employment waiting for them rather than discharge men who have to come on the unemployment fund?

Mr. FORSTER: No one would be more willing to do it than the Secretary of State and myself, but we have to consider the condition of the Army as well.

TROOPS IN MESOPOTAMIA AND INDIA.

Mr. LAMBERT: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for War if men who have been in Mesopotamia and India during the past summer will be compelled under the Military Service Act to remain another summer in those hot climates?

Mr. FORSTER: Orders have been issued for all men serving under the Military Service Acts to be dispatched from their present stations by 1st April, 1920, at the latest, subject to the necessary transport being available.

Mr. LAMBERT: Does that mean that all the men who took part last summer in Mesopotamia and India will be dispatched from those climates by the 1st April next?

Mr. FORSTER: Yes; all the men other than volunteers. I cannot give the number of volunteers who were there last summer.

Major E. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are men now in Mesopotamia who were sent out there in the autumn of 1916, who have had no leave and have now been transferred to work with labour corps in charge of Arabs and Turks?

Mr. FORSTER: I think that is covered by the answer I have just given.

Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me any assurance that the men in the Royal Army Service Corps in Mesopotamia, about whom I have written to him, will be released at an early dates Some of them have been there since the beginning of the War.

Mr. FORSTER: We are doing everything we can to get these men home as rapidly as possible. The men of the Royal Army Service Corps will, of course, be included in the answer I have given.

Colonel BURN: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can give an assurance that all the 1914–15 men serving in India, Egypt, and Mesopotamia will be returned to this country by the end of this year; what decision has been arrived at regarding the future of the Yeomanry; and if the regiments will be re-formed as they were before the War?

Mr. FORSTER: Orders have been issued which provide for the dispatch to the United Kingdom of all 1914–15 men, including men enlisted under the Derby scheme who are serving in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and are eligible for demobilisation by 1st November, 1919, subject to the necessary shipping being available. In the case of India, where demobilisation has been delayed owing to the operations against Afghanistan and the internal situation in that country, an extra period of time up to 1st February has been given, by which date, given the necessary shipping, these men should have started for home. In practice, however, the return of these men has been greatly accelerated, and there is every reason to hope that every man who enlisted in 1914 or 1915, and who is eligible for demobilisation, will have left India before the end of the year. With regard to the latter part of the question, no final decision has yet been reached as to the number of mounted Yeomanry regiments which will be required in the new Territorial Force, or how they will be employed, and it is not possible therefore at this stage to say whether the regiments will be re-formed as before the War or not.

Colonel BURN: Will the right hon. Gentlemen consider the great necessity there is of making up their minds exactly as to what they intend to do in the future on account of the numerous men who are anxious to rejoin their old regimentals?

Mr. FORSTER: I think we all realise fully the very urgent need of a very speedy decision.

Major NALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the real reason for this procrastination about the Territorial Force? Is it not a very simple matter to allow the force to be re-formed on the old basis?

Mr. FORSTER: I do not think that is the only consideration that ought to be taken in account.

Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that in the present state of the shipping question there are ships sufficient to bring all these men home at the time mentioned?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be addressed to the Ministry of Shipping.

Colonel GREIG: Is it not the fact that the fundamental difficulty in the reconstitution of the Yeomanry and Territorial units is the question of finance and the wave of insistence on economy which is sweeping over the country?

Mr. FORSTER: Yes. I can only say we are doing everything we can to come to a speedy decision.

APPLICATIONS BY EMPLOYERS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended that the most recent Regulations dealing with the demobilisation of men enlisted under the Military Service Acts shall be rigidly adhered to even where the man is applied for by his employers as urgently necessary for their business; and will he consider the advisability of allowing such men, where possible, to return to their work on indefinite leave and without pay, to be recalled to their units should necessity arise until the period fixed for their final demobilisation?

Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the latter part, I regret that it is not considered practicable to introduce my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion into the existing scheme of demobilisation.

Major E. WOOD: Arising out of the second point, has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of giving officers and men some approximate idea when they
will be demobilised? At the present time, as he knows, they have no idea until they actually get their demobilising notice.

Mr. FORSTER: I do not quite know what we can do more than we have done in publishing the Army Order which, as the hon. Member knows, has just been issued. If he can suggest any steps we can take to make the position clearer to the officers and men, I shall be glad to take it.

Colonel NEWMAN: Has demobilisation on compassionate grounds been withdrawn altogether?

Mr. FORSTER: No; I think not.

DERBY SCHEME.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many men who attested under the Derby scheme are still being retained with the Colours; and whether he will make every effort to secure the early release of these men, especially in those cases where they have been in. the East for three or four years?

Mr. FORSTER: I regret that the figures to enable me to answer the first part of the question are not available, as these men are not shown separately in any returns rendered to the War Office. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to Army Order 365 of 1919, which provides that all warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men who attested under the Derby scheme shall be dispatched from their present stations not later than the 1st February, 1920, subject to the necessary transport being available.

1ST KENT BATTALION (PRIVATE J. M. ROTHWELL).

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of several promises that Private J. M. Rothwell, No. 27170, 7th Platoon, B Company, 1/1st Kent Battalion, India, was about to be demobilised, whether he can state why this man's release from the Forces has been so long delayed; and whether he can direct that the orders given for the man's return to this country shall be put into effect?

Mr. FORSTER: Further inquiries are already being made in this case, and the hon. Member will be informed of the result as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRE-WAR ARMY PENSIONERS.

Major HURST: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the increased cost of living, he will consider the desirability of increasing the service pensions of pre-war pensioners who, for no fault of their own, but purely by reason of age and ill-health, were unable to join the Colours in the recent War?

Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply yesterday to a similar question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Edmonton.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MILITARY HOSPITALS, MARSEILLES.

Colonel L. WARD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether British military hospitals are still established at Marseilles; and, if so, will he state the number and approximate size of those units?

Mr. FORSTER: The latest information available in the War Office is dated the 16th October. On that date there were at Marseilles one British General hospital equipped with 750 beds and one Indian General Hospital equipped with 400 beds.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR.

Captain COOTE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many German prisoners of war have been repatriated to date; and when the country may expect to see the last of all these unwelcome guests?

Mr. FORSTER: Since the 1st September, 1919, when the general repatriation of German Combatant Prisoners of War commenced, 218,380 have been repatriated according to the latest returns, including 32,530 from this country. It is impossible to say at present when they will all have been repatriated, as this depends mainly upon transport facilities.

Captain COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the justifiable and increasing irritation amongst British Labour at the continued employment of these German prisoners of war?

Mr. FORSTER: I suppose we are all anxious to get rid of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL FORCE.

Captain COOTE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War what progress is being made with the preparation of the conditions of service in the post-war Territorial Force; what inducements he proposes to offer in order to attract suitable recruits to this force; and whether he has considered the advantages of offering reduced rates of Income Tax to all members of this force?

Mr. FORSTER: I am not in a position to make any definite statement at present.

Major NALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider all that is required is to assure men that they will be re-engaged on the terms existing before the War?

Mr. FORSTER: The hon. and gallant Member knows that the conditions of service are under consideration at the present moment.

Captain COOTE: Is it the attitude of the War Office that the Territorial Force is not required at all?

Mr. FORSTER: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend if he thinks that, he is under a misapprehension.

Major NALL: Why are fourteen major-generals drawing pay and allowances?

Sir WILLIAM SEAGER: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among the members of the Territorial Force Nursing Service, engaged in our home military hospitals, by reason of the fact that they are not to receive the war medal or victory medal the same as those who went overseas; that many of these devoted women volunteered for overseas service but were commanded to remain on duty in this country, where they received the wounded from overseas and rendered most efficient and invaluable service in nursing our soldiers and sailors back to health; will lie consider their claims for recognition; and does he propose to take any action in the matter?

Mr. FORSTER: As I have already stated, the question elf the award of a medal to those who rendered services in connection with the Army at home during the War is receiving careful consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the commanding officers of the reconstituted
Territorial Force units have been decided on; if so, when their appointments will be gazetted; whether enlistment is to start on 1st November as promised; and whether he is in a position to make public the conditions of service?

Mr. FORSTER: The future organisation of the Territorial Force has not yet been decided, and meanwhile no appointments to command of units have been made. The terms and conditions of service are still under discussion, and until a final decision is arrived at enlistments cannot commence.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: May I ask whether any sums for the Territorial Force were included in the Army Estimates in the White Paper circulated yesterday, and, if so, what amount?

Mr. FORSTER: I think that raises a different question, and perhaps my hon. Friend would give notice.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the War Office to make officers and men of the Territorial Force, when not embodied, liable to be called out as a military body in aid of the civil power; and, if so, whether he is aware of the serious effect such a Clause would have on recruiting?

Mr. FORSTER: No such decision has been reached. The future terms and conditions of service of the Territorial Force are still under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to War Office Letter 9/General Number 9,598 (M.S. 4) of 1st October, stating that no officer who has been in command of a unit for four years is to command a unit of the reconstituted Territorial Force; whether this applies to those who have held only acting or temporary command during the War; and whether, seeing that under the Territorial Force Regulations the period could be extended up to eight years and in view of the importance of taking advantage of war experience, he will consider extending the above period of four years for a further two years in special cases?

Mr. FORSTER: The letter referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend applies only to those who have held the substan-
tive rank of lieutenant-colonel for four years, and. the intention is that, in order to secure a flow of promotion and to enable young officers with war experience to be selected for command of battalions, etc., the term of command should not be extended beyond the normal period of four years.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Colonel NEWMAN: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the total number of officers who form general headquarters, together with the total of their pay and allowances as on the 1st October, or other convenient date; and will he say what work is undertaken by General Headquarters which could not be performed by the War Office itself, and an economy be thereby effected?

Mr. FORSTER: The number of officers at General Headquarters, Great Britain, is seventy-one, and the total amount of their pay and allowances is £72,000 per annum. The responsibilities of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Great Britain, include arrangements for defence, the training of all officers and troops in Great Britain, with the exception of cadets, and discipline and administrative questions affecting the organisation and distribution of the troops. In addition, the inspectors of all Arms except those of Ordnance and Quartermaster-General's services come under the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and report to him. The question of the retention or abolition of General Headquarters, Great Britain, is at present under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SALVAGE (WAR) WORK.

Major GLYN: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the total number of Chinese and other coloured labour, together with the number of British labour troops and other details, at present engaged upon salvage work in war areas; what is the weekly cost of this salvage work; and for how much longer is it anticipated that it will be continued?

Mr. FORSTER: I understand the term salvage in the question as covering all work of handling, custody, and transport of stores other than equipment in the
charge of regiments. The number at present employed upon such work in war areas are:


British Labour troops and other details
81,000


Chinese and other coloured labour
45,000


The weekly cost of salvage operations is estimated at £537,000 a week, including cost of transportation to the United Kingdom. The point raised in the last part of the question is under close consideration between the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions, and I can name no definite date at present, but my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that we are perfectly alive to the situation.

Major GLYN: Is it not the fact that the Ministry of Munitions are getting the credit for the amounts of money obtained from these sales, and that the War Office is getting abused as being an expensive service, and cannot this be readjusted?

Mr. FORSTER: Looked at from a purely Army point of view, I think that is very desirable: looked at from the point of view of the taxpayer it does not make any difference whether the amount realised by the sale of this material is credited to the Ministry of Munitions or the Army.

Major GLYN: Is it not the fact that this is delaying the demobilisation of large numbers of men who would be more profitably engaged in production in the country?

Mr. FORSTER: Of course it is quite clear that the duty of the collection, storage, and transport of this material—which is very valuable—has no doubt prevented the demobilisation of large numbers of men. It is quite obvious also that the work they have done and are doing would have to be done by others if they were sent away.

Sir S. SCOTT: Does the salvage sent home include such things as barbed wire or is this sold locally?

Mr. FORSTER: We do not deal in barbed wire.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has my right hon. Friend any idea how many pounds it costs to sell El worth of this stuff?

Mr. FORSTER: No; I am afraid I cannot say, because we are not responsible for what we have collected.

Sir J. BUTCHER: How much is expected to be realised in money out of this expenditure of nearly £600,000 a week?

Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question to the Ministry of Munitions. I understand they contemplate realising an enormous sum.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLACK SEA ARMY.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the signing of the Armistice many Infantrymen were transferred to the postal section of the Army of the Black Sea; whether these men have had no leave since they went overseas: whether, being Derby men aand entitled to retention in the Army of Occupation, they are entitled to a period of furlough; whether the Assistant Director of Postal Services declines to sanction any leave and says he will decline absolutely to accept any allotment for leave which may be offered to him on behalf of these men although they have been overseas without leave for periods of two and a-half years and three years; and whether he will make immediate inquiries into the conditions of the men in Constantinople, Salonika, Batum, and Bucharest, with a view to the removaal of this ground for complaint?

Mr. FORSTER: As the hon. Member was informed by letter on the 29th August last, since the Armistice some ninety men have been transferred from the Infantry and other arms to the Army Postal Service. In some cases the men had not been granted leave since proceeding overseas, and some of them were "Derby" men and entitled to furlough. I am informed that a fair proportion of leave has been allotted to the Army Postal Service. It is, however, regretted that hardship has been imposed on some fifty of these men, but only by postponing their leave was it possible to maintain an efficient distribution of mails to this widely scattered Force.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ARMY SERVICE CORPS.

Mr. LUNN: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that
men in the Royal Army Service Corps have been transferred against their will into the employment of the Navy and Army Canteen Board; and whether it is in order to withhold the demobilisation of these men?

Mr. FORSTER: No men of the Royal Army Service Corps have been transferred against their wishes into the employment of the Navy and Army Canteen Board. Shortly after the Armistice a limited number were lent to the Board to assist at ports and railway stations in the feeding of troops sent home for demobilisation. These men are released for demobilisation as and when they are eligible under current instructions.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MISSION (CAPTURE AT SANNA).

Colonel YATE: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the British mission to the Iman of Yemen, which was stated to have been captured by independent Arabs on the road from Hodeida to Sanna, has yet been released; who the mission consisted of; and, if not yet released, what information. he can give concerning it?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: A mission composed of three or four British officers, headed by Colonel Jacob, was on its way to visit the Iman Yahya at Sanna, when it was intercepted and detained by a small section of independent Arabs who do not recognise the Iman's authority. The members of the mission are being well treated, and are all in good health, and they are in uninterrupted communication with their relatives. Negotiations for their release are in progress, and it is hoped that this will shortly be effected. Exact information as to the personnel of the mission is not at present available.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

MARRIAGES TO GERMAN WOMEN.

Colonel BURN: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will cause inquiry to be made, by inspection of the register at Cologne Cathedral, as to the numbers of British officers, non-commissioned officers, and men who have married German girls since the Armistice?

Mr. FORSTER: The register at Cologne Cathedral has been inspected, and I am
informed that it contains no record of any British officer, non-commissioned officer, or man having married a German woman since the Armistice.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED SERVICES FUND (EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE).

Mr. CAPE: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the two ex-Service men's organisations known as the Comrades of the Great War and the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Soldiers and Sailors are represented on the Committee under General Lord Byng in connection with the disbursement of the accumulated canteen profits, and that it is proposed to entrust the administration of the fund largely to the local branches of these two organisations; that the National Union of ex-Service men, which in a number of areas is stronger in membership than either of the other two organisations, has been refused representation on the Committee or any participation in the work of administration; and whether, in order to ensure equal treatment to all such organisations, the services of the National Union of ex-Service Men will be utilised and the organisation given representation on the Committee?

Mr. FORSTER: The constitution of the Executive Committee of the United Services Fund has not been decided finally. The establishment and incorporation of this fund will be effected by Royal Charter, the terms of which are at present under discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL ISLANDS (PASSPORTS).

Mr. FREDERICK HALL: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any prospect of the early abolition of the passport system at present applying to the Channel Islands; and, if not, will he state which Channel Island authority objects to the abolition?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): I have been for some time in communication with the Governments of Guernsey and Jersey with regard to the abolition of the passport system at present applicable to the passenger traffic between
the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands, and I hope that a decision will be reached at an early date.

Major Sir B. FALLE: Is it not the fact that, owing to the small number of steamers and the large number of would-be passengers, the passport system is a blessing in disguise?

Oral Answers to Questions — VATICAN (BRITISH MINISTER).

Mr. LYNN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state when it is intended to withdraw the British Minister from the Vatican?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I hope to be able shortly to make a definite statement on this subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that His Majesty's Government fully recognise the importance of having a Diplomatic representative at the Holy See?

Oral Answers to Questions — LIQUOR TRAFFIC CONTROL.

Captain REGINALD TERRELL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now make any statement as to the policy of the Government in respect to the control of the liquor traffic, more especially in regard to the extension of hours during which alcohol can be sold; and whether he proposes to permit tobacco to be sold after 8 p.m.?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend should await the introduction of the Bill which the Government have promised to introduce dealing with the control of the liquor traffic. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to a question on this subject on the 20th of March, to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY STRIKE (COST).

Captain TERRELL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state the cost to the nation, as far as it can be ascertained, of the recent railway strike?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I would refer my
hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to similar questions yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF GUARDIANS.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether a Bill is in preparation designed to abolish boards of guardians and insurance committees; and whether lie can make a statement on the subject?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to the proposals which are under consideration in regard to the two points referred to in my hon. Friend's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD.

Mr. GLYN ES: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Consumers' Council stating that, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has given no reply to the deputation which urged upon him the necessity for at once establishing the Ministry of Food upon a permanent basis, the council again presses upon the Government and the House of Commons the importance of constituting forthwith the Ministry of Food as a Department of national administration with widely increased powers; and if he will say what action the Government propose to take in view of the support that the Consumers' Council has on the part of organised labour and consumers?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Smethwick

Oral Answers to Questions — SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES (SALES).

Mr. SWAN: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of distributing the Government stocks of surplus boots and cloth to the various municipal authorities in the country or co-operative societies at the prices which the Govern-
ment paid for the same, so that the same might be sold to the public for public need and at the same time prevent profiteering?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I do not think that municipal authorities are conveniently organised for undertaking retail trade, nor could I undertake to confine the distribution of Government stocks of surplus boots and cloth to co-operative societies. It is open to these societies, and to any other organisation of retail tradesmen or business firms, to tender for Government stores or to purchase at local auctions, and all inquiries from such organisations are welcomed. The Disposal Board does not hold out for the prices at which the goods were purchased by the Government. Its policy is to dispose of surplus stores at the best market prices.

Mr. WATERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that now these articles are sold to profiteers who add to the prices instead of reducing them to the public?

Mr. KELLAWAY: No, I have no information to justify that statement. This is not a time at which the Government would be justified in selling stores below their proper value.

Mr. WATERSON: Are the Government disposed to open retail shops themselves to sell at real market values?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I shudder at the prospect of the Government going into the retail trade.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if lie is in a position to give the amount realised by the sale of surplus stores for the six months ending 30th September, 1919, as compared with the Budget estimate of the amount of such sale; and if he will say how much is expected to be realised in the current financial year compared with the amount for which he budgeted?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been asked to answer this question. The sales of surplus stores (excluding raw materials on trading accounts) for the half-year ended 30th September, so far as the figures have at present come to hand, amount approximately to £45,000,000, as against a total of £76,780,000 allowed for in the Estimates for the whole financial year. I hope that we may eventually realise a total of about
£120,000,000 for the year, but my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate the difficulty of making anything like a close estimate.

Sir E. CARSON: What will be the cost of realising these stores?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Obviously offhand I cannot give that information.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING ACT.

Mr. SWAN: 52.
asked the Prime Minister, in the light of continued rise in the cost of living and the failure of the Profiteering Act to arrest increased prices or reduce cost of essentials of life so as to bring them within access of workers' wages, what policy the Government has to accomplish the same so as to cope with the general labour unrest arising from both high prices and inferior quality of articles purchased?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the Profiteering Act, the full effect of which is not yet felt, is having a very considerable effect. There are very many causes, including increased wages, which are responsible for high prices. High prices can only be effectively reduced if there is a greater production of commodities.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Might not high prices be reduced if the Government made both ends meet and stopped the inflation of currency?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it will greatly help to reduce inflation as soon as we cease to be under the necessity of borrowing.

An HON. MEMBER: Did not food prices rise rapidly before there was any increase in wages?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The lion. Member must realise there are many causes operating at different times and in different circumstances for the rise in prices, but I am satisfied that the main cause is inflation.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY ACT, 1919 (COMMISSIONERS).

Major COURTHOPE: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the restocking of woodlands felled for war purposes is seriously prejudiced by the
delay in appointing the Commissioners under the Forestry Act, 1919; and when the appointments will be made?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware of the urgency of appointing the Commissioners referred to, and as I said yesterday it is hoped to announce the names this week.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIGHTNING STRIKES.

Mr. EVELYN CECIL: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majerty's Government to introduce legislation to prevent irresponsible or lightning strikes against the community until a ballot has been taken of all the members of the trade union concerned in the dispute?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD (COST).

Captain R. TERRELL: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give the cost of the Food Controller's Department and the extra expenditure necessitated by the. resumption of rationing this winter?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. The estimated cost of the administration of the Ministry of Food for the financial year ending 31st March, 1920, is £2,490,000. This amount includes a sum of £720,000 involved by the continued existence of Food Control Committees owing to the necessity for the rationing of certain foodstuffs this winter. Some form of organised distribution of sugar and butter must, I am afraid, be maintained so long as the world shortage of these commodities continues. I do not anticipate any part of this expenditure will have to be borne by the taxpayer. Hitherto the cost of the administration of the Ministry of Food has been covered by the margins obtained as the result of its trading transactions.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (WAGE-EARNERS).

Captain COOTE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is
aware that in the opinion of many managers of large industrial enterprises the objection on the part of wage-earners to the payment of Income Tax is due to the fact that payment is demanded in a lump sum. instead of being spread over the financial year, with the result that such wage-earners find it impossible to pay Income Tax without severe hardship; and whether he will consider the advisability of allowing business firms to deduct Income Tax from the wages of such of their employés as are liable thereto from week to week and save the cost and difficulty of collection?

Mr. BALDWIN: I assume that the question relates primarily to weekly wage-earners employed by way of manual labour, and the answer has been framed accordingly.
Income Tax due from weekly wage-earners employed by way of manual labour is charged by quarterly assessment and involves quarterly payments. Where, however, the amount of the quarter's Tax exceeds six shillings it is open to these wage-earners to spread the payment over thirteen weeks by applying to the Collector for a card for the purpose and affixing stamps of appropriate value weekly. Moreover, in these cases where both the employer and the bulk of his employés so desire, arrangements are made for the collection of the Tax by deduction from the wage.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ALIENS (UNINTERNED).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 61
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lie will state the number of enemy aliens, distinguishing between Germans and other enemy aliens, who were in this country uninterned at the date of the Armistice; and how many of these persons have since been repatriated?

Mr. SHORTT: I regret that I cannot give the precise figures asked for as no census was taken on the date of the Armistice, but I hope that the following figures will serve the hon. and learned Member's purpose. According to a census taken in July, 1918, the alien enemies at liberty in this country numbered 10.749 males (including 5,785 Germans) and 10,216 females (5,965 Germans). A census in July, 1919, showed
9,613 males (5,446 Germans) and 9,041 females (5,321 Germans). The differences between these figures represent repatriations, fresh internments and the recognition as alien friends of persons belonging to friendly races who were at the earlier date technically subjects of enemy Powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DOCUMENTS LOST.

Captain HACKING: 68.
asked the Pensions Minister what procedure he proposes to adopt in order to settle quickly cases of application for pension from ex-soldiers whose documents the War Office or officer in charge of records admit have been mislaid or lost?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Col. Sir James Craig): The practice in such cases is to apply to the officer in charge of records for such information as he may still be able to furnish. This generally includes particulars of service and, if the man is invalided, particulars of the paragraph of the King's Regulations under which the action was taken. If the latter item of information is not forthcoming the man is asked to furnish a copy of his discharge certificate. The man is then brought before a medical board.

WIVES AND MOTHERS (RAILWAY FARES).

Captain HACKING: 69.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he will consider making a small grant from the Special Grants Committee funds or other source towards the occasional railway fare of a wife or widowed mother in poor circumstances in order to allow her to visit her husband or son who is an in-patient undergoing institutional treatment in a home some distance away from his own home?

Sir J. CRAIG: Assistance cannot generally be given to relatives to enable them to visit discharged men in hospitals; but, in the event of a patient's condition becoming critical, the nearest relative will be paid travelling expenses on application to his or her local war pensions committee. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Circular dealing with this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ALIENS.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of enemy aliens, distinguishing between German and other enemy aliens, who were interned in this country at the date of the Armistice; how many of these persons have since been repatriated; and how many of those who still remain in this country have been recommended for exemption by Mr. Justice Younger's Advisory Committee?

Mr. SHORTT: The number of enemy aliens interned at the date of the Armistice was 24,450, of whom 20,472 were Germans. The number repatriated since the Armistice exceeds 20,000 (including over 17,000 Germans). All those remaining in the country, with the exception of a very small number whose cases have only just been determined, have been recommended for exemption from repatriation by the Committee.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state approximately the number of enemy aliens, distinguishing between German and other enemy aliens, who were exempted from internment by the Advisory Committee which sat in 1915?

Mr. SHORTT: The Committee's Report made in July, 1915, stated that 6,092 enemy aliens had been recommended by them for exemption from internment. The Report does not distinguish between Germans and other enemy aliens, but it is estimated that the Germans in this total did not exceed 2,800.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state approximately the number of uninterned enemy aliens, distinguishing between Germans and other enemy aliens, whose cases were reconsidered by Mr. Justice Sankey's Advisory Committee in 1918; how many of those were recommended for internment and repatriation, respectively; and how many were left uninterned provided they did work of national importance?

Mr. SHORTT: I regret that I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to a similar question put by the hon. and learned Member on 29th July last, when I stated inter alia that about 350 persons were interned and 250 repatriated in the course of this Committee's work.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give no idea of the number of Germans still in the country who have not been let out and have not been before Mr. Justice Younger's Committee?

Mr. SHORTT: As far as I understand the question, I think I have just answered it.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. T. WILSON: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any steps have yet been taken to carry into effect the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on conditions of service, etc., of the staffs in reformatory and industrial schools; whether he is aware that the hours of work of teachers and instructors in these institutions average from sixty to seventy per week; that the remuneration of the teachers is considerably below that paid to teachers in elementary schools whose hours of work are much less; that the pay of the instructors is considerably less than that of the average craftsmen employed outside; and whether the recommendation of the Committee that these staffs should receive at least twelve months' retrospective pay is to be carried out?

Mr. SHORTT: I am aware of the findings of the Committee referred to, which was appointed by my predecessor with the special object of improving the conditions of service of the staff of reformatory and industrial schools. In reply to the second part of the question, the Committee did not state that the average hours worked are from sixty to seventy per week, but that the staff are generally employed for thirty hours a week in teaching and often for as many or even more hours on other duties. The reply to the third and fourth parts of the question is in the affirmative. With reference to the first and fifth parts of the question, I am anxious that effect should be given to the recommendations of the Committee by the managers of the schools as soon as possible, including the recommendation as regards retrospective pay. The scheme which the Committee proposes involves a complete review of the financial arrangements by which these schools are supported, and the whole subject is receiving
the immediate consideration of the Treasury and the Home Office. I hope to be able to issue to the managers of the schools very shortly a statement showing what the revised financial arrangements will be.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE RESERVE.

Major COURTHOPE: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether members of the police reserve who were called up or invited to volunteer for police duty in August, 1914, and served throughout the War received the same pay as regular constables employed on similar duty; whether they participate in the increase of pay and pensions recently granted to the police force; and, if not, on what grounds they receive less generous treatment than their comrades?

Mr. SHORTT: The terms on which members of the police reserve were employed daring the War were in the discretion of the local police authorities and varied to some extent in different districts, but, generally speaking, they were not entitled to the increase of pay recently given to the regular police or to pension for length of service. In the Metropolitan Police they received, in addition to their pension, and in view of the fact that they would not acquire any right to increase of pension a. rate of pay considerably higher than the regular police were then receiving. All such men, however, if serving on 1st September, 1918, were granted by the Police Act, 1918, a right to a pension for their widows.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR SERVICE.

ROUTE TO EGYPT (CASUALTIES).

Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Air Ministry whether his attention has been called to the statements recently made by Colonel G. L. P. Henderson as to the serious number of deaths to pilots on the new air route to Egypt, and whether he can make a full statement to the House in regard to the whole position?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): I cannot go into detail within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but I shall be glad to make a full statement on the first possible occasion.
The broad facts are these: In the spring and early summer the War Office communicated to us the urgent demands of Egypt for aircraft of large size and endurance in order to cope with the situation, which was described as critical. At the end of March the request was for as many Handley-Page machines as could possibly be spared, and at the end of April they telegraphed urgently for additional squadrons. In view of the fact that no Handley-Page machine had ever been packed and sent by sea it was decided that the machines must be sent by air to meet the critical emergency, although considerable risks were necessarily involved.
At the end of April the first squadron was ordered to proceed, and special measures were taken to assist the move of this squadron. An officer with a special and practical knowledge of the route was sent out to arrange for facilities such as landing-grounds, spares, petrol, etc. Flying-boat escorts based on Toranto at first and then on Alexandria were also arranged. The squadron left on 3rd May. On account of the accidents which occurred, an officer was then stationed at each aerodrome on the route, whose primary duty it was to assist machines in getting through. Great difficulty, however, was experienced by these officers in getting messages by telephone or telegram through in time for action to be taken, and also in getting the necessary spares to the points required, owing to the difficulty of transport. Train communication was equally ineffective. A further difficulty was that owing to rapid demobilisation it was impossible to get the best qualified personnel within the time available. It was further arranged that replacements for the three squadrons who had gone to Egypt should be sent by air by the staging method. Two pilots and a few mechanics were stationed at each staging aerodrome. At the present moment fifty-one Handley Page machines have left for Egypt; of these twenty-six have arrived, ten are on later stages of the route, and fifteen have been written off.
A month ago the Chief of the Air Staff requested that a special committee of inquiry should be instituted composed of officers outside his own Department, and that inquiry is now proceeding. I should here like to emphasise the fact that the making of this route had nothing whatever to do with civil aviation, the whole being organised
by the Service side. One machine crashed badly and four lives were lost. Three other bad accidents occurred, involving four fatal and four non-fatal injuries. This loss of life is greatly to be deplored, but it must be borne in mind that the situation was critical, and that prompt action was essential. I am advised that the sending of these machines by sea would have meant that they could not have been ready for action until many months after they were required.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the very large loss of life and large cost involved, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of having a more independent inquiry than that by some officers of the Air Service?

Major-General SEELY: This inquiry is as independent as it can be. The Chief of the Air Staff realised that it was important to have as independent an inquiry as possible a month ago, owing to the accidents involved in transporting this great number of machines over a practically untried route. The officers who arc investigating it—I think they must be officers, because practically everyone who understands the air has been in the Air Service during the War—are outside the Department of the Chief of the Air Staff and are quite independent of that Department.

An HON. MEMBER: Who are they?

Major-General SEELY: I know some of them. If the hon. Member will put down a question I will give him full details. The fullest inquiry will be made, and if it be found -that a mistake has been made by anyone concerned, from myself downwards, I need hardly say appropriate action will be taken.

Mr. STEWART: How many of the Air Force are missing?

Major-General SEELY: The machines lost—fifteen—have been totally written off and others have been damaged. The total casualties so far are what I have given.

Mr. HOUSTON: When the right hon. Gentleman says fifteen machines have been written off does lie mean that these machines have crashed?

Major-General SEELY: It means that they are of no further use—either fallen into the sea or so broken up that they are of no use. Twenty-six have arrived.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBER SWORN.

The following Member took the Oath and signed the Roll:
Right Honourable Arthur James Balfour, for City of London.

Orders of the Day — CONSTABIULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee.

[MR. WTHITLEY in the Chair.]

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): I beg to move:
That it is expedient to authorise further provision, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for the pay of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, and for pensions, allowances, and gratuites to members of those forces, their widows, and children, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police.
The House will recollect that yesterday a Second Heading was unanimously given to the Bill of which this is the Money Resolution. The Desborough Committee which sat to consider and make a proposal to the Government affecting the pay, pensions and allowances of the police of this country, did not consider the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, but the Treasury have now agreed that a corresponding increase in pay, pensions and allowances should be given to those officers and men who arc so gallantly performing their duties in Ireland. The amount which is estimated under the new rules for the Dublin Metropolitan Police will involve an additional charge of £97,114. The amount estimated for the Royal Irish Constabulary is £989,035. It is quite clear that no greater amount can under this Bill be given to the Royal Irish Constabulary or the Dublin Metropolitan Police than has been given to the police of this country. The estimate, therefore, has been fairly computed, and is easily understood, and I hope the House, in view of the services of the men concerned, will now pass the Money Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN: I have had put before me two proposals to amend this Resolution, but both of-them would clearly increase the charge, and under the Standing Orders that cannot be done on the Motion of a private Member.

4.0 P.M.

Sir E. CARSON: I should like to ask the Chief Secretary, before this Resolution is passed, whether it gives an opportunity to the Committee to consider the
pensioners of whom he spoke last night. These unfortunate men, many of whom are almost on the verge of starvation, have served, as the Chief Secretary testified, faithfully and loyally under the most difficult circumstances. I do not know whether the words "pay of the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police and for pensions, allowances and gratuities, and to amend the law" include the past members of the force, or whether there will be authority under this Resolution for the Committee to take into consideration those who are at present pensioners, or whether it only deals with the men who are serving in the force. The Government will commit a grave error in the government of Ireland if they exclude from the consideration of the Committee the case of these men. It will cause bitter disappointment in Ireland amongst a most deserving class of His Majesty's subjects, and I hope that in whatever way it can be done, it may be possible for us in the Committee to raise the whole question of those who are now pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary. You have referred, Mr. Whitley, to certain Amendments which have been handed in. One of those Amendments was in my name. I propose to make it perfectly clear by putting in the words "and pensioned ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary." You have ruled that that would be increasing the public charge, and that it cannot be done by a private Member, and the Government must take the responsibility of it. If the effect of this Clause shuts out from the consideration of the Committee even the examination of the case of these men—nothing in the Resolution compels the granting of higher pensions—I desire to make an emphatic protest, and to say that that is done not by the action of this House, but by the action of the Government, because I believe that Members of this House, and especially those who heard the Debate last night, are in entire sympathy at all events with an examination of the case which these men presented to the House. I would greatly regret that the Chief Secretary, whose sympathies I do not doubt in the least, should have to announce here to-day, in the present state of affairs in Ireland, and with all that the police are going through and the ex-police are going through as well there, that it was the considered opinion of the Government that their case should not be even considered
upon this occasion by a Committee. So far as I am concerned, I have done all that I can in raising this protest, and I wish it to be known to these men that it was not in my power or in the power of any private Member of the House to raise this question. I hope the Government will see that their case ought to be considered, and that the Chief Secretary, backed up by the Committee when they have examined the case of these men, will be able to have more effect with the Treasury than was had hitherto in his application for funds.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I should also like to join on the same lines in the appeal to the Chief Secretary. Let us remember that the reason why these men arc suffering bitterly in the circumstances is because they have done their duty, and saved life and property in Ireland under conditions of great danger to themselves in the past. This was referred to last night, and I do not desire to go over the ground again except to emphasise one point. It was said last night, with perfect truth, that these former members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police are in great financial difficulties now because their pensions are very small and because they cannot get employment. They cannot get employment because men are intimidated by the forces of disorder in Ireland from giving them employment. May I remind the Committee that pensioners in this country get employment very largely, and properly so, from county councils, municipal bodies, and other public bodies, who are only too glad to have former police officers, soldiers and others. In Ireland, under existing conditions, with Sinn Fein rampant throughout three parts of the country outside Ulster, it is impossible for any ex-soldier who has served his country or any ex-policeman who has done his duty to get employment from any of these county councils, municipal councils, or any of the so-called public bodies in Ireland. Therefore you have this exceptional position, that whereas in England, Scotland and Wales, so far as I know, these local authorities are only too glad to give any employment in their power to ex-soldiers and policemen, in Ireland these men are absolutely debarred from getting such employment for no reason except that they have done their duty to the country. I therefore beg the representatives of the Treasury and the Chief Secretary to in-
crease the pensions of -these men and so wipe away what really amounts to A stain upon our national honour.

Colonel NEWMAN: I should like to remind the Treasury and the Chief Secretary himself of the fact that these pensioners had a definite promise given by one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, that when their case was brought before Parliament the then Chief Secretary would give them the best backing he possibly could. I have in my hand a copy of a letter written to the pensioners of the County Tyrone Association in 1917 by the then Chief Secretary, who I think was Lord Justice Duke. He said:
The Lord Lieutenant and I have given careful consideration to the case which you have put forward on behalf of members of your force. We are satisfied that you have shown good grounds for a substantial rise, both in the amount of pay and in the amount of widows' pensions. As was the case in 1914 and 1916, the rise in pay and pension can only be obtained by Act of Parliament, but we are taking the necessary steps to bring the matter forward, and will do our utmost to press it to a successful conclusion.
Any body of men with that in front of them can honestly rely now on the Chief Secretary, the Lord Lieutenant, and the Treasury doing the best they possibly can for these pensioners. More than that, the pensioners can rely on the House of Commons to see that the Treasury does its duty towards them without delay.

Major O'NEILL: The Chief Secretary on the Second Reading of the Bill last night stated that he had been to the Treasury on this question and in his own words he said that so far he had been unable to obtain from them the consent for the raising of the necessary money to grant these pensions. I take it, therefore, that anything which is said in this House which will enable him to go to the Treasury, backed by the strong opinion of this House, will be welcomed by him this afternoon. I do not know what took place between the Chief Secretary and the Treasury when he saw them, but I understand that the main objection on the part of the Treasury officials lo including these pensioners in this Police Bill is that if that were done it would entail similar treatment to Civil Service pensioners of all kinds throughout the country. So that if we can differentiate between the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, as opposed to other Civil servants, and if the Chief Secretary can show the Treasury
that their position is a different one, then when lie goes to the Treasury again he may possibly be able to come back with success. Surely there is one essential difference between the members of these police forces and other Civil servants. It is that both the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police are not police forces at all in the ordinary acceptance of that term. They are armed forces—armed semi-military forces—a force such as exists nowhere else in the United Kingdom. The only other instance I can think of in Europe is that of the Guarda Seville in Spain. A force of that kind is more akin to an army than to a police force. When we are considering the case of the pensioners of those forces we have to consider them rather in the light of soldiers who have been discharged from good work in the service of their country —I might say in the active service of their country, because if ever a police force has been engaged in the past on active service, can we not say that that force has been the Royal Irish Constabulary? Unfortunately, in years gone by, as we all know, Ireland has been continuously in a state of disturbance. To-day it is practically in a state of open war, and when you say that you cannot grant increases to pensioners of a force which has been upholding authority in that country for so long because you will thereby be letting in Civil servants in all other forces, it is not a proper representation of the case. I trust that when the Chief Secretary again goes to the Treasury on this matter he will be able to show them successfully that the members of these two great police forces are on an entirely different footing from those of ex-Civil servants throughout the other Departments of the Government, and that he will therefore be successful in obtaining for them this much-needed increase in their pensions.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I rise as an Englishman to say one word which may be of assistance to the Chief Secretary. The differentiation between the police pensioners in Ireland and other pensioners on this side of the Channel appears to be that which was pointed out so clearly by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher). Too much emphasis cannot be placed upon that differentiation. While the police officer in England is a man looked up to, esteemed, employed, and competed for
even by employers, a man in a similar position in Ireland is boycotted and is left to starve. He can get no assistance or compassion of that kind. That is the essential difference. I pleaded on another occasion for the case of many of the English pensioners which is not before the Committee at the present time. What is before the Committee, without in the least prejudicing the case of English pensioners, is the essential difference and hardship under which the Irish pensioner labours. We were told on a recent occasion that there are over 50,000 troops in Ireland at the present time, and the cost of maintaining those troops is £210,000 a week. If my right hon. Friend wants an argument to help him with the Treasury, let him point to those figures, and let him say, as he can with truth, that if there is any hope on the part of the Government of an early reduction in those figures it must rest on the loyal service and continued enthusiasm of the whole of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and that the continuation of such loyal service will be promoted when these men know that their predecessors in service are being treated generously and fairly by the British Government. The position has been clearly set forth by my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir E. Carson). It is that no private Member can deal with this matter by way of initiation of an increased charge, but the Government under the Rules of the House can deal with it, and it rests with the Government to deal with it if they please. I have risen to assure my right hon. Friend that if he takes the course which has been indicated to him he will have the sympathy not only of those Members who are most closely associated with Ireland, but of every fair-minded and patriotic Member in this House on whatever side he sits or with whatever section of the House he is identified.

Sir W. DAVISON: I wish to say one word in support of what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) and the last speaker. As an English Member, but one who has resided in Ireland, and knows something of the work which has been done in the past by the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, I think that they should receive the warm consideration of this House. We have recently often had before us the question of improving the conditions of
life of various sections of the community who are still able to carry on their various avocations, and large sums of money have been voted to those sections to improve their conditions of life. Surely, before any more money is voted to improve the conditions of life of men who are still able to earn a living, even though that living may not be as good as we might desire, we owe something to the men who during many years in the past have borne a great burden in support of the law which this country has been obliged to maintain in Ireland. It is not a question in their case of improving their conditions of life, but of preventing them, after having served the country, from enduring severe hardships. I trust that the House will support the Chief Secretary in obtaining this concession on behalf of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: I only wish to raise one point. It is perfectly clear that the sympathy of the House and practically of anyone who has any realisation of the affairs of Ireland is entirely on the side of these pensioners. There are very few English Members, however, who would at the present moment allow the Treasury to be taxed for these ex-Civil servants. But there is another way by which it might be done. There is a vital difference between the Irish and English police. The English police are supported entirely out of the rates, but the Irish police are supported almost entirely by the Exchequer. I would suggest that a special Amendment should be introduced compelling a special rate to be levied in Ireland for the payment of these pensions, a special rate levied in Ireland and paid by the Irish people, and I would also like to see a minimum laid down beyond which the rate should not go.

Major O'NEILL: Might I ask whether it is a fact that as the Resolution stands it will be impossible to introduce Amendments in Committee to carry out this object?

The CHAIRMAN: That is clearly so. In Committee we cannot go any further than the authority which is given on the recommendation of the Crown. Should the Government bring in an additional or wider Resolution, that would give the Committee wider authority.

Sir E. CARSON: Is there any way in which we can obtain the opinion of the House that the Government ought to do so?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. and learned Member remembers that it is one of the protections of the taxpayer that money matters must be regulated in this way.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I need hardly tell my hon. and right hon. Friends that I have the greatest possible personal sympathy with them in this matter. Nobody knows better than I do what these men have had to endure in the past, and no one has a clearer mind on the subject that different treatment is being meted out to these men in Ireland from that received by people in the same category in this country. It is a matter of great regret to me that under the resolution as it stands in accordance with the Rules of the House the matter cannot be raised in Committee on the Bill. I would urge the Committee, however, to, give me this Resolution as it stands. The English police have been in possession of their charter for three or four months, and the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police have had to endure a very long delay. Fortunately, through the kindness of my right hon. Friend at the Treasury, I have been able to give these officers and men an advance in their pay of £10 on two separate occasions, but I would press upon the Committee that this Bill as it stands is most urgent at the present time, arid I trust that there will be no delay in granting this Resolution as it appears upon the Paper. I am delighted to find that in all quarters of the House there is an evident desire to do something for these pensioners. Every man who knows anything about Ireland is convinced that their case is not the case of the ordinary Civil servant at all. A case has always been made out for the Royal Irish Constabulary that they are not an ordinary police force. The case for them has always been that they are really a semi-military force, and, if I were arguing the case before the Treasury, I should point out that the pensioners who served in the Army in the old campaigns have had their pensions increased. I am sure, whatever the position of the Civil servant might be, that he would be delighted to see these men enabled by a grant out of the public Exchequer to live a more comfortable and happy life than they are able to do at present in Ireland. I have had to-day the advantage of a con-
versation with the Treasury, and I am quite sure that the Treasury will do everything in their power to meet this case, because they are now convinced that the case of these men is entirely different from that of every other Civil servant. I hope, therefore, after that assurance, that my right hon. and learned Friend will not press me to go any further at the present time. I am in a position to state, if the Treasury will consent to it, as I hope they will, and will look upon the case of these men as being entirely different and worthy of all consideration and support, that then whatever Parliamentary means I have at my disposal I shall be most happy to use in the interests of these men, and in accordance with the expressed sympathy of the House in all quarters to carry it through.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I do not think that many of us are likely to stand in the way of my right hon. Friend or in any way to resist the appeal which he has just made. At the same time I think he will realise, although he has expressed his most warm sympathy with the case which has been put before him, and we all know that he is perfectly sincere, that he is not able, owing to the circumstances in which he is placed, to give anything very tangible for the satisfaction of the men chiefly concerned. We all understand that my right hon. Friend is really in a difficult position to deal with the matter, but I do not think that there need be any delay in the passage of this Bill if my right hon. Friend even now would withdraw this Resolution and put down another in wider terms. It would be possible for him to do that without delaying the passage of the Bill. I will tell my right hon. Friend why I think that would be the proper course. We all know and realise that the Treasury are perfectly right at the present moment to keep an extremely tight hand upon the public purse, but the proper way for the Treasury to exercise that function would be to send their representative on to the Front Bench when the matter was being discussed in Committee. I see my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary (Mr. Baldwin) seated on a very modest part of the Treasury Bench. No one is more capable of defending the action of the Treasury at the proper time and in the proper manner. If this Resolution even now were amended, or if a new Resolution were put down in terms sufficiently wide to allow this point being raised in Committee upon the Bill, then the Finan-
cial Secretary could come down and give his reasons for objecting to increasing the pensions of these ex-members of the force. If his arguments prevailed with the Committee, well and good; but, on the other hand, if they did not prevail, then it would rest with the discretion of the House, which is surely the proper tribunal to decide whether or not this addition should be given. I do not intend to be in any way obstructive to the course which my right hon. Friend thinks it neessary to take, but I cannot deny that the attitude which he has assumed will be extremely disappointing in the quarters where interest is chiefly centred, and I would venture to appeal to him even now, at the last moment, whether he does not think it possible to let us have a wider Financial Resolution which would enable this point to be gone into in Committee.

Sir E. CARSON: I do not take quite the gloomy view of my hon. Friend of the statement which has been made by the Chief Secretary. No one doubts his sincerity and his earnestness upon this question, and he has told us that already today, as I understood him, he has had further interviews with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he hopes that for the moment we shall not press him further. I think, from my experience of Governmental heads, that it means a great deal when they tell you that in that kind of way. I do not think that it shuts out hope, and for my part I feel confident. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Long) here, because he knows all about this question in Ireland. I am glad to see that he assents to what I am saying, because I am sure that we shall have his sympathy. He has had to deal with many of these men in the old times, and I feel confident, after the expression of opinion which has taken place in this House, that with the persistent effort of the Chief Secretary, with all his sincerity, and with all that the Government owe him for what he is doing in Ireland at the present time, they will make the way easier for him and those who are administering the law in Ireland by making this concession. For my part, I am anxious not to delay this Resolution or this Bill for one moment, because I know the urgency of it, and I really do myself feel a greet deal of confidence from what the Chief Secretary has said.

Mr. HOGG E: This kind of Debate to which we have listened this afternoon is a
curious introduction to the discussion we are going to have to-morrow. If I understand the Resolution rightly, it asks for over £1,000,000 to deal with the question of pay alone. Presumably, that is an annual minimum. Now my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) and those associated with him in the government and mismanagement of Ireland come along with a sectional claim for an increase in the pensions of ex-members of the police force, a claim which can be put up by any other Members—

Sir E. CARSON: Is there any other man who is refused employment because he has given loyal service to the Crown?

Mr. HOGGE: I do not deny that. I am making no point against those men. But I say that there are a great many loyal men who have served the Crown who cannot get preferential appointments. It has been said in this Debate, in this country ex-soldiers and ex-policemen who have pensions—and the policemen have better pensions than the soldiers—have a better opportunity of employment than the average man, but even admitting that, when those places have been filled there is a very large number both of ex-policemen and of ex-soldiers who have served the Crown loyally who cannot get those occupations. None of us will deny this facility to those men if possible, but if you admit this claim you have got to admit the claim of every ex-Service man—[HON. MEMBERS: "No‡"] This claim is being advanced on the ground that those men are economically run out. The phrase used by the right hon. and learned Member for Duncairu (Sir E. Carson) was that they were on the verge of starvation, and, of course, everybody, whatever his political attitude, should sympathise with those men. But we all know that there are other great masses of men in this country who could put forward similar claims, and, while I am prepared to back any of them, I ask the Committee can we do it in face of the figures published this morning, and should we tempt these men to believe that this thing is possible when at the present moment the Treasury cannot get the money? However much one sympathises with the case put up we must face the facts of the situation. We have had three White Papers issued by my right hon. Friends opposite to which they adhere. They
will have great difficulty even in defending those on the ground of their own Resolution. At any rate, they want the amounts diminished. If so, you cannot face this and deal with this question in this sectional way, in which all of us have acted—I have been a guilty party myself. We do not know where it will lead to. I hope that the Chief Secretary will bear in mind that if that kind of course is pursued there is any number of representatives of other classes in the community who will knock at the door of the Treasury with the same insistence and assiduity, and if we do not make a halt and face the financial situation we shall be in the position that we shall not be able to pay even what we are paying now, if we are going to pay our way from one year's end to the other.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think my hon. Friend misunderstands the real situation. It is not because of the domestic circumstances of these men that we are making a difference in their case. It is because they are loyal men who have been penalised for their loyalty.

Sir W. WHITLA: We are all unanimous except the last speaker in recognising that there is a very distinct difference between this force and the ordinary Civil Service. The arguments advanced are on the fallacious basis that they are identical. The feeling of the House being at the present moment that they are totally different, I would ask, Can we have some way of registering the decision of the House, so as to help the Chief Secretary in going to the Treasury? Would there be any objection to prefacing the Resolution by words to this effect—
that in the opinion of this House the position of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police being entirely different from that of the ordinary Civil Service, etc.
If we can embody that I think we shall meet the case.

Mr. HOHLER: While I sympathise with those past pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary, because I realise that many of them will not receive the benefits that this Bill proposes to confer, by reason of their having retired a week or a month or a few months earlier, yet I must protest respectfully against the notion that this case is entirely different from the case of the police pensioner in England, or of the soldier who served the State before the War, or from that of the naval officer or Seaman who had a pension before the War.
Nor does it differ in my judgment from that of the Civil servant. None of the pensions are adequate. They were given to keep these men in a position of respectability and comfort in the days when they were past their work, and that is the real ground for asking for an increase in their pension. If it be true—and I accept it—that the Irish people refuse to employ these men because of their loyalty, then saddle this burden on Ireland. Raise it by way of a rate in Ireland and do not take it out of the pockets of the whole people. There are policemen, soldiers, sailors, and Civil servants, who have retired on pensions, and if you increase the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and give nothing to them it will be a grievous injustice. It is a misconception to suggest that the pensions of naval men who have not served in this war have been increased. The ground of the reservation has been this, that once you consider the question of increasing the pensions of any class of men with past pensions, you must consider and do justice to all. The right hon. Member for Duncairn says that many of these men are almost starving. But for that he blames the refusal of employment in Ireland. I accept it. I am not in a position to deny it. My answer to that is that it is equally true in regard to the police pensioner who is suffering from rheumatism or some disability preventing him from working. I would ask the Chief Secretary to bear this in mind. I do not agree that there is any real difference, on the substantial merits of the case between their position and that of the pensioners in Great Britain. I respectfully protest that their case ought not to be put on a different footing. If something should be done it should be done equally for all. I am in sympathy with it being done, but I do protest that the money of this country should not go to a particular force because of a particular injustice. If they suffer from disloyalty, let the disloyal people pay, but do not settle this case on the ground that there is any real distinction between the case of the pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the pensioners who have been in the service of the Crown in this country or in Scotland.

Colonel GRETTON: I think it unfortunate that the practice of submitting a memorandum showing the financial results of the proposal has not been followed in this case. I am not in any way
blaming my right hon. Friend. He has been occupied with business elsewhere. But I do suggest that it would be a great convenience in discussing the later stages of this Bill if he would, even now, have prepared a memorandum, giving an estimate of the expenditure involved over this Bill and having it submitted to the House, so that it may be used during the Committee and the Report stages. The House of Commons is entitled to a statement of the expenditure involved when a Money Resolution is submitted, and the practice of suspending this statement should not be abandoned.

Mr. LYNN: We have been considering the question of pensioners all over the United Kingdom. We have been considering one section, and a strong case has been made out for that section. We are dealing with a very deserving class, which has served the nation well, and it will be a disgrace to the House and the Government if they allow those men to continue in the position in which they have been for some years past, living practically a life of starvation. I join most heartily, as one who knows something of the condition of those men, in urging their claims on the Treasury.

Mr. STEWART: I would like to dissociate myself from what has been said by the hon. Members for Chatham and East Edinburgh. It is not true to say that the Irish police are on all fours with any body in this country. They are particularly deserving of the most generous consideration that can be given. All the Civil servants and ex-policemen in this country do not go about with their lives in their hands as these men have done for some years past. I am glad to see the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Long) here, because I understand that even his Department, which is not an easy one to get money out of, is considering the case of increasing payments to old pensioners. I held in my hand just now a letter from his Department relating to a certain old petty officer, and they tell me his case is being sent forward to the Pensions Department with a view to having his pension raised. In view of the fact that the Royal Irish Constabulary are a combatant force who live in perpetual danger, and discharge their duty faithfully, it is not a fact to say that their case is on all fours with that of any other body of men, and I ask the House to back up this appeal.

Mr. R. McLAREN: I entirely associate myself with what has been said. I think that a very strong case has been made out for these poor pensioners. It is fallacious to say that the life of a policeman in England or Scotland is as hard as the life of a policeman in Ireland. Anyone who knows anything about Ireland knows perfectly well that it is child's play as compared with the work done by these men, and the statement made in the House to-day—and there is no reason to doubt it—that these poor pensioners are near a state of starvation, makes it incumbent upon the House to press on the Chief Secretary to do his level best to help these men in their necessity. It is a very serious situation if men, when they retire, are not permitted to take a situation because they have been loyal subjects of the Crown. It is incumbent upon the House and the Government to do their level best to help these men, and I trust that the Chief Secretary will do all he can in the matter.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I sympathise thoroughly with what the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) has said, but I would remind hon. Members that not long ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer begged us not to put pressure on him on every occasion for increased expenditure. I think that, however just this claim may be, the time of financial trouble through which we are passing is so serious that this House would be well advised in acceding to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's request and in acting accordingly.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPERANNUATION (PRISON OFFICERS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

(Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.)

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of Superannuation Acts in their Application to Prison Officers)

(1) The Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914. shall, in their application to officers employed in prisons and criminal lunatic asylums of such classes as the Secretary of State, or in Scotland the Secretary for Scotland, or in Inland the Lord Lieutenant, with the approval in each case of the Treasury, may from time to time prescribe, have effect subject to the following modifications:

(a) Fifty-five years shall be substituted for sixty years as the age on retirement at
528
which without a medical certificate a superannuation allowance may be granted, and accordingly Sections ten and eleven of the Superannuation Act, 1859, shall, in their application to such officers as aforesaid, have effect as if for "sixty years" there were substituted "fifty-five years":
(b) In calculating the amount of the superannuation allowance or additional allowance of any such officer, the proportion of the annual salary and emoluments to be added in respect of the twenty-first and every subsequent year of service—

(i) in the case of a person to whom Section one of the Superannuation Act, 1909, applies, shall, as respects superannuation allowance, be two-eightieths instead of one-eightieth, and as respects additional allowance be two-thirtieths instead of one-thirtieth; and
(ii) as respects the superannuation allowance of a person to whom that Section does not apply, shall be two-sixtieths instead of one-sixtieth:


Provided that nothing in this Section shall affect the maximum amount of the superannuation allowance or additional allowance which may be granted to any such person.
(2) This Section shall have effect with respect to the superannuation and additional allowance of officers who have retired at any time since the seventeenth day of September, nineteen hundred and eighteen.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for North Lanark has handed in two Amendments, but I am afraid that both of them involve an increased charge and are therefore out of order.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2.—(Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill Reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — RATS AND MICE (DESTRUCTION) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

(Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.)

CLAUSE 1.—(Penalty for Failure to Destroy Rats and Mice).

Any person who shall fail to take such steps as may from time to time be necessary and reasonably practicable for the destruction of rata and mice on or in any land of which he is the occupier, or for preventing such land from becoming infested with rats or mice shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Lleut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I draw attention to this Clause, which pro-
vides that any person who fails to take necessary and reasonably practicable steps for the destruction of rates and mice shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20. While having every sympathy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) who desires to rid the country of these pests, I think that this Clause is too loosely worded. It reminds me very much of the wording of the Profiteering Act. What are "necessary and reasonably practicable steps" for the destruction of rats and mice? Who is to say that Farmer Jones or old Mrs. Brown, or any occupiers of land or premises, have not taken reasonable steps for the destruction of rats? Apparently some young gentleman bearing the wand, the sign-manual, of the Board of Agriculture, having examined premises, can summon the occupier before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Before the Committee accepts this Clause we should have some hint as to what is involved here, as to whether it is necessary to give such power over the occupier of land, and, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks it is necessary, whether the words are sufficiently precise. If legislation of this kind is going to be carried out in anything of a Prussian or autocratic spirit it will really destroy the end in view. These things are done most efficiently by the arousing of public enthusiasm. At the present moment great enthusiasm is being shown in the destruction of rats. Directly compulsion is introduced, enthusiasm goes. I ask for some assurance that the proposals of this Bill are not going to be carried out in any sort of officious or bureaucratic way. Let me call attention to the way in which pigeons are periodically attacked in an entirely voluntary way by farmers, who organise pigeon drives. They do that without regulations or rules or any Act of Parliament, and without the aid of officials of the Board of Agriculture or anyone else. I think that is the way in which we should attack rats. We ought to watch a little over the liberty of the individual, and prosecute our campaign against rats with the goodwill of all the two-footed inhabitants of the country.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have not read the Bill carefully, but I am rather sorry that the hon. Member opposite did not move an Amendment to reduce the penalty to £5. Twenty pounds seems to me an enormous penalty to inflict on any person for
not getting rid of rats and mice. The vast majority of people are only two anxious to get rid of the pests, and they do not want any compulsion from the Government to do it. It is, however, not an easy thing to get rid of rats. On my property in the country I have a good many rats, and I have been trying for a long time to get rid of them, sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully. They are down in holes; you have to get them out of the holes. You can put in ferrets, but they are not always successful. I think it will be agreed that farmers are very much harassed just now by Government Regulations. No one is more anxious than farmers to get rid of rats. When there are too many rats in the stack it means loss of revenue. What is to be the procedure under the Bill? Is an official to come down—probably he does not know a rat when he sees one—and he will say, "Why have you not got rid of your rats?" The farmer will say he is very sorry but he cannot do it. Is the farmer then to be summoned for not getting rid of the rats? Do let us be a little careful in all this legislation. Why is there this insane desire to inflict penalties on everybody? Leave it to the common sense of people, and they will naturally get rid of their rats. My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir A. Boscawen) is a most reasonable person. Let him say that if there is a Report stage he will reduce the penalty to £5, or that in another place the penalty will be reduced to some reasonable sum.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I want to know whether I shall be in order in moving an Amendment to insert in the Clause the words "required by the local authority" in lieu of "necessary and reasonably practicable."

The CHAIRMAN: The Question is already that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. There cannot be an Amendment of the Clause.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Then I am afraid I have no alternative but to speak against this Clause.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): Perhaps I can shorten proceedings by pointing out that if my hon. Friend looks at Clause 4 he will find that it does precisely what he suggests. That is to say, that a local authority cannot take action unless it is of opinion that the occupier of any land has failed, etc. etc.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. CAUTLEY: There is, however, a great deal of difference. The objection that I have to this Bill is that it puts a penalty on a farmer although he may have tried, and that he may be summoned before any magistrate by any person who has a grudge against him. The real gist of the offence is, and should be, that he has refused to take such steps as he is called upon to take by the local authority, which is the body to enforce the Act. It is quite true that under Clause 4 of the Act the local authority may, if they are satisfied that rats exist in undue quantity, step in and do the work themselves, charge the occupier of the land with the costs, and, if necessary, recover it as a civil debt. That is quite a common form in the suppression of all nuisances in our Public Health Act, but in that Act the local authority cannot prosecute until it has given written notice requiring the occupier to abate the nuisance. The real offence here is that the occupier is committing a nuisance on his land by allowing the rats to multiply and to become a nuisance. I beg of the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this matter very carefully, and to see if he cannot obtain the result he desires by creating much less friction, and this he will achieve by following the course which has been suggested. The local authority ought to find out that the rats are becoming a nuisance, and then should require the occupier to get rid of them by ferrets or by poisoning. If he has not done so, then the local authority or the Board of Agriculture should prosecute or step in and do the work themselves and charge the occupier the expense, or do both. Unless some provision of this kind is inserted I feel that I shall have to oppose this Clause.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I wish to say a word in support of what has been said by the last speaker. Anybody who lives in the country and has had any experience of dealing with rats knows that the real difficulty is that one person may destroy the rats while his neighbours will not do so. Very often a small slaughter-house will provide a stock of rats to supply the whole country, and it is no use one occupier destroying them if his neighbour does not take the same course. It has been said that we have to choose to some extent between a plague of rats and a plague if officials. It might be that some official
who has to carry out these duties may know very little about rats. To me it seems a mistake to impose such a heavy penalty because a man has not destroyed the rats on his premises, and that is going too far. When it is reported to the local authority that certain premises are infested, that authority should give notice to the occupier that those rats should be killed, and then if he does not carry out his duty he should be prosecuted. I do not think that anybody should be prosecuted for an offence of this kind unless he has received a proper warning. This could easily be done, because the killing of rats is not of such vital urgency that there is not time to give notice.

Mr. ROYCE: I should like to call attention to one case. Suppose the occupier is an aged widow and she owns land which is infested by rats. She has no possible means of dealing with them, and surely it is rather hard that this woman might become liable to a penalty of £20. I think a proposal of that kind would impose very great hardship upon a large section of the rural population. I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will adopt the suggestion that notice should be given before action is taken.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I very much hope that this Bill will not be weakened in its passage through the House. Everybody must recognise the enormous damage done by rats. As I stated last night, it is estimated that £40,000,000 of food was destroyed last year by vermin of this kind, which is very nearly the amount of the bread subsidy. I was surprised at what the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) stated, because nobody knows better than he does how the farmers suffer from this cause in regard to the corn in stacks and so forth. The object of the Bill is to prevent this terrible loss of food. I could not agree to the omission of this Clause, which is the Motion now before the House, because it is the essence of the whole Bill, and all the rest of the measure hangs upon the fact that we require the individual occupier of premises or land to destroy his own rats. It would be absolutely wrong that the occupier should think somebody else is going to do that for him. The result would be that nobody would do it, and it would be left to the local authority. It is absolutely necessary that this duty should be placed on the individual, and the local authority should do it, if he is in default, at the occupier's
expense. Therefore the responsibility must be placed in the individual occupier in the first instance, and anything which tends to weaken that responsibility would make the Bill largely nugatory. I suggest, therefore, that the first Clause is absolutely necessary.
May I point out that there is no question of the employment of a horde of Government officials, because the body to deal with this matter is the local authority and then the Board of Agriculture, and the latter only in case the local authority fails to do its duty? After all, we must consider the vast amount of damage which is done, and in face of the fact that the rat population has greatly increased, I think we should take drastic powers to put an end to it. It is all very well to tell us to rely upon propaganda, and creating what has been called an anti-rat atmosphere, and to say that the individual will do this for his own protection and preservation. We have relied upon that all this time, with the result that £40,000,009 worth of food was destroyed last year; and besides this there is a grave danger of the spread of disease by rats. I am quite prepared to consider any improvement in the actual wording, and if we can introduce words which will not seriously weaken the Bill I have no objection. At this stage, however, I must ask the Committee to adhere to this Clause, which is the essence of the whole measure.

Mr. HOGGE: I think the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill should realise that nobody wants to preserve the rats or the mice, but with the best desire in the world to assist my hon. Friend in getting rid of his rats, I do not think his proposal will do that. Under this measure the individual may be fined £20, and I think the Bill should be altered to allow a person to protect himself, and he should be given proper notice that there would be a penalty if he failed to do his duty.

Sir F. YOUNG: I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will find by experience that ho will attain his end, perhaps by a slower method, if he requires notice to be given by the local authorities. I have had considerable experience in connection with this class of legislation as regards rabbits in Australia, and the circumstances are very similar. It has been found in all the Australian States that the most effective legislation to secure the destruction of vermin was to require the local bodies to give specific notice to the
occupiers or owners of land, and by this: method it is very much easier to prove the. offence. As a result of very considerable experience in Australia, I may say that I think the Committee would be well advised to adopt the suggestions which have been made to improve this measure.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the Parliamentary Secretary should consider the case which has been put before him It has already been pointed out that it is exceedingly objectionable to inflict such a heavy penalty for an ill-defined offence. The hon. Gentleman representing the Government states that the principle of the Bill is to throw the obligation on the individual occupier. That may be the principle of the Bill, but it sounds to me a very inequitable principle, because the rats and the mice are not created or encouraged by the occupier. If the local authority or any other people desire the rats to be killed in the public interests, it seems to me that the local authority should kill them, and the occupier should give them every facility to come in and kill them. It might be that it is necessary that the local authority should be required to give notice and require the occupier to exert himself, but even that partakes of the character of conscription. If notice is given to the occupier as to the offence, he would know what his obligation was. It ought also to be provided that if the occupier is a person who really has not the power or capacity to deal with a situation of that kind, and. can no more set about a campaign against rats than against the Germans, that ought to be a sufficient defence. The Government have got into the habit of planting on penalties here, there, and everywhere, and disregarding the ordinary principles of maintaining the liberties of the subject.

Major HOWARD: It seems to have been generally assumed that the magistrate in these cases will not use any discretion, and almost every speaker has spoken as if the magistrate would be compelled to convict. The obligation on the occupier would he to kill the rats in the best way he possibly can. In regard to the penalty of £20, I would point out that the farmers feed their pheasants in the woods during June and July, when there is no food about the farms. The rats gather there and get under the kilns, and so they multiply and feed on the food given to the game, and as soon as the harvest comes on they spread all over the land. Farmers have for years been paying to have these rats killed, while the occupiers of buildings
have not paid anything like what the farmers have for this purpose. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will stick to his Clause, but in my opinion it would be well that the farmer or occupier should be given notice. That would improve the Clause.

Mr. HARRY HOPE: I welcome the introduction of this Bill, and I think it should be clearly understood that there is an obligation resting upon every occupier of land to keep it free from vermin. At the same time, I think it is only right, and it is all in the direction of securing the smooth working of the Bill, that timely notice should be given to every occupier, so that he would know what to do before he was liable to be convicted under the Bill. I do not think any farmer wants to be in the position of committing an offence and will only be too glad to carry out his duties under this Bill, but I hope the Government will put in a provision so that all occupiers of land and buildings will have reasonable notice.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Enforcement of Act.)

(1) The following local authorities shall execute and enforce this Act, that is to say—

(a) in tile City of London, the Common Council;
(b) in any Metropolitan borough, the borough council;
(c) in any administrative county (other than the County of London) or county borough (except any part thereof which is a port sanitary district) the council of the county or borough;
(d) in any port sanitary district, the port sanitary authority;?

Provided that a county council may, with the consent of the council of any borough or county district in the county, delegate its powers and duties under this Act to that borough or district council, and where powers and duties have been so delegated the borough or district council shall be the local authority for the purposes of this Act.

Mr. GILBERT: I beg to move, after the word "that" ["Provided that a county council"], to insert the words
the London County Council shall, to the exclusion of any other authority, be the local authority for the purpose of executing and enforcing this Act with respect to the sewers vested in, and the sludge vessels belonging to, that council; provided also that.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture can accept this Amendment. The first Sub-section of this Clause refers to the Common Council of the City of London and to the borough
councils; but owing to the peculiarities of London government we have three authorities in London dealing with the sewers. The City of London and the Metropolitan borough councils deal with the local sewers, and the London County Council deal with the main sewers, with the outfall, and with the vessels which take the sludge to the sea, and my object in moving this Amendment is to protect the main sewers which are under the control of the London County Council. I do not know whether the particular drafting of the Amendment will meet the views of the Parliamentary Secretary, but if he can give us the principle we are after I will not quarrel with him in regard to the actual words.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I quite agree with my hon. Friend, and I think in respect of those sewers and those sludge vessels which are the property of the London County Council the Council should be the authority. I quite accept the principle of the Amendment, and I am willing that these words should be inserted, but I would reserve my right on the Report stage, if necessary, to be able to alter the drafting.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 3 (Powers of Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in Case of Default by Local Authority) and 4 (Powers of Local Authorities and Authorised Persons, and Penalty for Interference) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Application to Vessels.)

(1) This Act shall apply to a vessel as if the vessel were land, and the master of the vessel shall be deemed to be the occupier thereof.
(2) A local authority having power to enforce this Act, may by notice served on the master of a vessel in its district require him to adopt such measures as are prescribed by the notice for preventing the escape of rats and mice from the ship, and if a master fails to comply with the requirements of any such notice served on him, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to see this Clause omitted. It applies the same legislation to vessels as to land. We have had I do not know how many Bills in the short time that I have been a Member of this honourable House dealing with ships, and the unfortunate
master of a merchant ship is being saddled with more and more Regulations, with pains and penalties if he does not observe them. The Aliens Bill, which we have not yet seen the last of, has the same pains and penalties for the unfortunate master of a merchant ship, and we have had the Wireless Telegraphy Bill and the Mercantile Marine Uniform Bill—very necessary Bills, but all containing the usual sort of Clause which the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London referred to just now as penal clauses. There have for years existed very efficient Regulations in the ports of the United Kingdom for dealing with rats leaving ships or going on board ships. We all know that the brown rat, which is the main cause of the trouble now, came over by ship to this country, and since those days and since the plague days there have been these Regulations to deal with ships, and I fail to understand why this Bill should now be made to apply to ships also. I have had complaints from masters of ships of great experience recently about the numbers of Rules and Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, and the Admiralty, and the Board of Trade, and the Ministry of Shipping, and all these other Government Departments which are harassing and persecuting these unfortunate men. A master of a ship is away at sea on a voyage for months, and when at last he comes into harbour he does not know what has passed during his absence. I think this is a most unnecessary Clause, because the necessary powers already exist in the harbour authorities and, I believe, the Board of Trade as well.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I really hope the Committee will not agree to omit this Clause. There is no more potent means for introducing rats into this country than ships, and I should say, although I do not know what exact proportion, but a very large proportion of the rats which are introduced into the country are brought by ships, and we should really be taking away a great part of the utility of this Bill if we left this Clause out. I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Hull in his natural desire not unduly to harass the masters of ships, and, therefore, I took some trouble this morning to ascertain what the position is. Ho has told the Committee that there are already Regulations whereby rats can be dealt with on the ships. It is true there are certain powers. The Ministry of
Health can make certain Regulations in regard to rats on board ships where there, is a danger of disease being introduced by the rats, but only in that case and only where it is supposed that the rats are suffering, say, from bubonic disease, or something of that sort, which makes them a danger. On the general question of the destruction of food, with which we are here concerned, there are, however, no Regulations, and I have taken such opportunity as I have had this morning of informing myself, and I find that the Department concerned think their present powers are quite insufficient. The hon. and gallant Member is afraid that the masters of ships will be troubled by a whole bevy of officers of different Departments boarding the ships to see what steps are being taken) to deal with the rat trouble. That is not so. If he will look at the Bill he will see that the authority to deal with this Clause. is the Port Sanitary Authority, and it wilt be an officer of the Port Sanitary Authority and nobody else who will board the ships, and I must ask the Committee to allow us to have this Clause, for otherwise I can assure them the rest of the Bill will be rendered useless to a great extent. I have received information from the Liverpool Port Sanitary Authority, who have by voluntary measures, undertaken a campaign of rat destruction, and last year, aided "by volunteer rat catchers, they destroyed 50,667 rats on quays and vessels, 2,603 in warehouses, and nearly 8,000 in sewers and other places. I can assure the Committee that a vast number of rats are introduced from ships, and, therefore, it is very necessary that we should have this Clause.

Sir W. RAEBURN: I would like the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to see that some strengthening is put in in Clause 1—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): That is not in order now.

Sir W. RAEBURN: It is a great hardship to masters that there is nothing here to protect them. Might I appeal to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to insert after the word "such" ["such measures"], the words "necessary, reasonable, and practicable "?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If my hon. Friend had moved an Amendment before the Clause was put, I would have accepted the insertion of words limiting it to reasonable and practicable steps, and I am willing to
accept such an Amendment on Report. With regard to the other point raised, this Clause of course deals with the responsibility of masters of ships, and not with the responsibility of occupiers of quays, wharves, or warehouses in the neighbourhood of docks, from which rats might go on to ships. That would be dealt with under other Clauses. You must strengthen Clause 1. However, we can discuss that on Report. For the time being, I only ask the Committee to allow this Clause to stand.

Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I sincerely hope this Clause will be passed as it stands in the Bill. As one of the Members for the City of Liverpool, I am quite aware of the enormous amount of destruction caused by rats in ships; and also I can say, for the information of the Committee, that a more important question with regard to ships is the amount of disease which rats convey from foreign countries to this country, particularly that most dreadful disease called bubonic plague. We know practically that almost all the bubonic plague is brought from Eastern countries to Europe by means of rats, and for that reason alone I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will insist on maintaining this very important Clause—to my mind, the most important Clause in the Bill as it stands.

Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL: I hope that this Clause will be enforced on foreign ships. I should like to be assured that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has looked into this matter, and is quite certain that the laws of this land are sufficient to enforce this in foreign ships in our own harbours.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have taken advice, and I am told that, for the purpose of this Bill, all ships are included, whether foreign or British.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Interpretation.)

In this Act—
The expression "occupier" means, in the case of land not occupied by any tenant or other person, the owner of the land.
The expression "land" includes any buildings and any other erection on land, and any sewer, drain or culvert in land.

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words, "The expression `mice' does not include dor-mice, wood-mice, harvest-mice, or shrew-mice."
I may explain that this is a naturalist Amendment, and, although a very small point, has behind it considerable strength and influence. These are harmless but useful species of mice, and it would be a pity to include them in the general denomination which is extended by the Bill to their more criminal relatives. The strongest case may be made for shrew-mice, I understand. I am informed by those more intimately acquainted with its habits than I am that a shrew-mouse is a positive friend of man, and helps us by consuming grubs and worms. The other species are simply species of interest to natural historians and scientific men. They do no harm, and it would be a pity to exterminate them. In our youth we have all learnt from the dor-mouse lessons of repose and contentment which serve us in good stead in later years. The wood-mouse is a distinct species, and the harvest-mouse is on the same lines as the wood-mouse, being of a species which does no harm. There is no protection asked. It is only a question of removing from the occupier the obligation actively to exterminate them.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have had no notice of this Amendment, and I have not studied the question, but I am informed that if we left out all these various kinds of mice, there would be no mice left to exterminate, and in that case the best plan would be for my hon. and gallant Friend to move to leave out mice altogether. Although they may be harmless to human beings, undoubtedly they consume a great deal of human food, and it is for that reason we think they ought to be included. I certainly could not accept the Amendment now. If on Report stage it is proved that these animals do not really consume a vast amount of human food, and if there are any other mice left besides those in the categories named, I will consider the question.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 (Application to Scotland and Ireland), 8 (Saving of Existing Powers) and 9 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill Reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUANCE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
As the House is aware, during the War it was found necessary from time to time to pass special Acts of Parliament., and also, under the Defence of the Realm Act, to frame special Regulations in order to deal with the conditions which the War brought about, or brought to light, and it became clear some time ago that even after the termination of the War it would be necessary to continue some, at any rate, of those enactments and those Regulations. But, if I may say so, I entirely agree in advance with the opinion, which I feel sure will be expressed, that the amount of that special legislation and regulation which is continued should be the minimum, and that no legislation or regulation of that kind should be continued merely upon the ground that, in the opinion of a particular Department, it might be found convenient. There should be a higher plane—that it should not be continued unless it is in truth and in fact necessary. That is the standard which I venture to think ought to be applied to this measure. The measure was introduced some three months ago, but it was, of course, drafted some months before that time, and it represented the result of the deliberations of the Committee, sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Cave, which carried on its deliberations over a long period. In the time which has elapsed since the drafting of the Bill, and since the introduction of the Bill, there have been opportunities to review, in the light of further events, the provisions which the Bill contains, and I am glad to be able to say that as the result finally of the deliberations of the Committee which met some weeks ago, a considerable part of the Bill is no longer thought to be necessary. The proposal which I venture to make to the House to-night is that the Bill, subject to the important omissions -which I will mention in a moment—omissions, however, which cannot be made upon the Second Reading stage—shall be read a second time, and that the Bill shall thereupon be referred to a Committee, on the understanding, if it should appear in the course of the deliberations of that
Committee, that any further Regulations contained in the Bill can with safety be omitted, the Government will not only be willing but anxious to consider a suggestion of that kind.
The Bill, as the House is aware, consists of two parts. They are in form three, but they are in fact two. One part relates to statutory enactments, and the other part relates to Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act. The method which has been observed with regard to statutory enactments is to set them out in two schedules, and to provide for the extension of those enactments. I do not think I need spend much time upon these enactments. They are, speaking generally, enactments for the benefit of particular classes of the public, and therefore for the public as a whole, in matters connected with the War. May I give what I think is a fair specimen? There is, for example, at present upon the Statute Book an Act called the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914. That was amended by a Section of a later Act, and at present that Act is limited to injuries and disablement suffered by persons while they are employed by or under the Admiralty or Army Council in connection with warlike operations in which His Majesty is engaged. It is suggested that hardship would arise if that Act were left in the form in which it is. It is proposed to make the Act apply to injuries and disablements suffered by persons so employed during one year after the termination of the present War in conditions rendered hazardous by acts done during the War, as if in Section 1 of the Act, after the words "war-like occupations in which His Majesty is engaged," there were inserted the words
or during twelve months after the termination of the present War in conditions rendered hazardous by acts done during the War.
That, I think, is a fair sample of the statutory enactments which it is proposed to prolong. In regard to some of them, I am able to say here and now, it is not proposed at present, however necessary it may have appeared when the Bill was drafted, to proceed with them. In the First Schedule, for example (page 7 of the Bill), there is. Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1914; (on page 9) Trading With the Enemy Act, 1916, and a little lower on the page the Naval Discipline (Delegation of Powers) Act. 1916, as amended by the Act of 1917; and on the previous page of the Bill, the
Clubs (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1915. These are matters, and there are others, with which I think we can dispense. Now I come to what may perhaps be thought more debatable regions—that is Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Would my right hon. Friend excuse my interruption, but it is important for us to know as we go along, if I may say so, what the Attorney-General proposes to omit. He mentioned "some amongst others." I think it would certainly be for the convenience of the House if, before he departs from this, he would tell us in detail what it is proposed to do.

Sir G. HEWART: I bow at once to that suggestion. I was taking the course which I thought might save a little time. Others are in the Second Schedule (page 11), Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871. Air Force Act, Section 108 (a), Naval Billeting, etc., Act, 1914—that is to say, three out of four of the enactments mentioned in Part I. of the Second Schedule; and in Part II. the second enactment, the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is nothing more out of the First Schedule?

Sir G. HEWART: Nothing more out of the First Schedule I think. I think I mentioned those teat would be excluded from the First Schedule. I repeat what I said before, that, speaking generally, these were Acts of Parliament which did not increase the power of the Executive or of a Government Department, but improved, in view of the particular circumstances and the particular needs and hardships of the past, the position and the remedies of the subject.

Lord HUGH CECIL: Is it proposed to retain Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act in the Schedule, but not the Act itself?

Sir G. HEWART: Sub-section (4) of Section 3 will be retained, and if nay Noble Friend will bear with me for a moment I will, before I finish, say a sentence upon its retention. I come now to the Defence of the Realm Regulations mentioned in the first column of the Third Schedule and what is proposed in regard to them. There are certain Regulations which it is proposed should be extended for a certain period, but I am sure the House will
observe this, that the period which is so mentioned is the maximum period; it is not a period during which all the Regulations which are retained must remain in force. It is a period for which at the most they may remain in force, subject to the power of revocation. That power is contained in the words of Sub-section (1) of Clause 3, which says:
Provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to revoke in whole or in part any of the Regulations so continued as soon as it appears to him that consistently with the national interest any Regulation can be so revoked.
It is important that the House realises that it is not proposed that the period named in the Schedule should be the period for which, in any event and in any circumstances, those Regulations shall be continued, t a period for which they may be continued subject to the power of revocation at any time. In regard to these Regulations let me say at once that at the later date which we have now reached we propose to omit—I will mention them seriatim in a moment—the Regulations which provide for the billeting of soldiers and airmen on civilians, the regulations relating to passports, the regulations giving the power to remove persons considered by the authorities undesirable from the areas where there are troops. In referring to that I may also refer to the Regulations committing without trial, persons suspected of doing something or about to do something dangerous to the public safety, and the Regulations imposing penalties for spreading reports considered prejudicial to recruiting and likely to cause disaffection, and other regulations.
It is not only that we now propose to, omit a considerable number of these Regulations. If hon. Members will look at the subject of those which it is proposed to omit, I think they will find that we are omitting some of those to which, if it had not been for the lapse of time, most serious exception might have been taken. Let hon. Members look at the Third Schedule. I will name in their order the Regulations with which it is proposed to dispense. There is 2M (Powers with respect. to Land, etc., for the purpose of maintaining the food supply of the country). There is 2u (Powers of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with Respect to Fisheries). Take the next page (page 14). There is 7BB (Power to Authorise Increase of
Charges on Carriage of Merchandise by Sea between Great Britain and Ireland). Then again 8c (Power to Authorise and Require Use of Registered Designs). There is 9E (Prohibition against Drilling, etc). There is On (Power to Control Canals). Turn to page 15. There is 13A (Power to Remove Persons Convicted of Certain Offences from the Vicinity of Camps); 14B (Power to Impose Restrictions or to Intern Persons of Hostile Association, etc.); 14G (Restrictions on Embarking in Ports in the United Kingdom for Places Outside the United Kingdom); 28A (Power to Prohibit Persons Entering on Government Property, etc.); 30BB (Restriction on Dealings in Interests in Mines and Oilfields). Take the next page. I hope, though I am not at the moment able to say definitely, that we may be able to dispense with 30F (Restrictions on New Capital Issues). But the decision upon that matter must rest on information which is not yet complete in my hands. There is 33A (Restriction on the carrying of arms); 36, 36A and 37 (Control of navigation); 37c (Provisions for securing the safety of ships); 38 (Power to prohibit vessels entering or being in dangerous areas); 39A (Provisions as to the discipline of crews of ships belonging to or requisitioned by Government Departments); 39BB (Power to increase dock charges). And (on page 17) there is 40A (Restriction on the supplies of intoxicants to members of the forces undergoing hospital treatment); 40c (Provisions against malingering); 41D (Restrictions on sending remittances out of the United Kingdom); 42c (Provisions for securing discipline amongst members of civilian corps attached to the forces); 43B (Provisions with respect to absentees without leave). On the next page there is 46A (Prohibition of assistance to prisoners of war and interned persons).
Take now Part II. (Regulations continued for six months after the termination or the present War). Here, perhaps, it will be easier to mention those which it is proposed to retain. We propose to retain 10B (Power to restrict hours in the evening during which business may be carried on); 39O (Regulation of traffic at ports); and 39cc (Restrictions on power to purchase ships), and to leave out all the rest. These omissions, with the exceptions I have named, I am able to announce at once; and they will, I trust, remove a good many of the objections
which naturally are to be urged against a Bill of this kind. In the months that have elapsed it has been possible to make a provision of this character. I reiterate what I said a moment ago: I respectfully propose to the House that this Bill should now be given a Second Reading, and that in Committee we should explore with all the detail necessary the case for every one.

An Hon. MEMBER: And make it a new Bill?

Sir G. HEWART: Certainly not‡

Lord HUGH CECIL: To what Committee is it proposed to send it? A Standing Committee or a Select Committee?

6.0 P.M.

Sir G. HEWART: I think a Standing Committee, to examine every one of these Regulations which it is proposed to retain; for I think it will be found that the case for our proposal will be found to be really substantial and overwhelming. There is a reply I would wish to give to the Noble Lord below the gangway who asked me whether it was proposed to retain Sub-section (4) of Clause 3. I am very glad to have had that point brought to my notice. I have observed in the Press some reference to it. I cannot help thinking that that hostile criticism has been founded on a complete misapprehension. May I endeavour to remove it? What this Sub-section provides is that where any of the Regulations which are continued after the termination of the War provides in a particular way for the price and the compensation payable for acts done under these Regulations that shall be the price accepted for compensation, and that in every case, that is in cases where the Regulation continued makes no special provision as to the price or compensation, then recourse shall be had to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission, and that Commission, in respect of any losses, shall inquire what sum shall in reason and fairness be paid. According to the newspapers this means that under the Regulations as they are proposed to be continued it will be possible on a large scale to enter upon land and send the persons whose land is taken to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission for compensation. As a matter of fact, the only. Regulation which it is proposed to continue giving power to requisition is Regulation 2 AB, which provides that it shall be lawful for the
Commissioner of Works to take possession of any land, including buildings thereon, which the Minister of Pensions may certify to be required for the purpose of accommodating the staff of the Ministry of Pensions or of otherwise carrying into effect the Naval and Military War Pensions Act of 1915, and which provides also for similar action if the Minister of Labour certifies that the land is required in connection with any scheme of demobilisation, and for the purpose of Employment Exchanges or the accommodation of the staffs of the Department. The second part, which was the larger part of 2AB, is not to be continued. If and where the premises are taken in that way, then compensation shall be sought, not by Petition of Right, not by arbitration under the Lands Clauses Act, but by and at the hand of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. During the War a very large number of persons had to be compensated, and, as I venture to think, were fairly compensated, at the hands of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission. But there is a case at present before the Courts, the case of the De Keyser Hotel, where the owners of the premises did not accept that form of compensation. I make no observation on the matter except to say that that case was taken to the Court of Appeal, where the Lords Justices did not agree in their judgment. The matter is now before the House of Lords, and, as I understand, is likely to come up for final argument there. The suggestion, if I followed it correctly,—and I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Colonel Newman) for reminding me of it—is that in this insidious way the Government are trying to forestall, and to get rid of, and to anticipate, an adverse judgment in the House of Lords. Nothing could be more improper, and nothing could be more maladroit.

Sir T. WHITTAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the case of the De Keyser Hotel, and of course there are many other offices which have been occupied by the Government. Will this provision, if passed, deprive the owners of those properties of the right to go to the Courts which they now possess?

Sir G. HEWART: I do not so understand it, and I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the following words in Subsection (4) of Clause 3:
Where by reason of the exercise after the termination of the present war of any power under any Regulation so continued which does not contain any such provision as aforesaid.
It is with reference to those cases.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There may be cases which have arisen between the 11th November and to-day in which the parties have certain rights in Courts of law, and you are now taking them away from the 11th November.

Sir G. HEWART: The only other matter is the question of punishment. It is said that the punishments which are permitted by Sub-section (2) of Clause 3 are very severe, and that it is one thing to prescribe punishments of a severe character while war is actually proceeding and quite another thing to contemplate them when, although the war is not technically over, hostilities have for the most part ceased. There, again, I think the criticism is founded on a misapprehension. Under this Clause the most severe penalty which can be passed at any time is, on indictment, imprisonment not exceeding two years, and in the case of summary offences imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine of £100, or both. You cannot class those punishments with the punishments under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which included penal servitude, and, if certain ingredients were present, capital punishment. May I add one final observation? I have spoken of omissions with regard to these Regulations. In doing so I have been speaking of Great Britain and I have not been speaking of Ireland. I understand from those who are immediately responsible for the administration of Ireland that as matters stand they do not at present see their way to diminish the scope of what the Bill originally asks. Therefore, I hope right hon. and hon. Members will quite understand that so far as the Regulations are concerned the omissions which I have enumerated refer to Great Britain and to Great Britain alone.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order, I beg to submit that this Bill is out of order and that, therefore, the Second Reading cannot be proceeded with for the following reason. The title of the Bill says,
A Bill to continue temporarily certain emergency enactments and Regulations, and to make provision with respect to the expiration of emergency enactments and instruments mad. thereunder.
It does not in any way say that this is a Bill to alter the law. If you turn to Sub-section (4) of Clause 3 you will see that that Sub-section alters the law in a very marked degree. The words of the Subsection are,
Where by reason of the exercise after the termination of the present war of any power under any Regulation so continued which does not contain any such provision as aforesaid,
that is a provision that there shall be a particular manner in which the compensation shall be assessed then,
any person suffers direct and substantial loss he shall be entitled in respect of such loss to such payment if any as the Commission appointed by His Majesty commonly known as the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission consider should in reason and fairness be made to him, and no person shall be entitled to any other remedy whatsoever, whether by petition of right action or other proceeding either against the Crown or any other person, and in assessing the amount of such payments the Commission shall act, etc.
I venture to say that that Sub-section repeals an Act of Parliament and the right which the subject has always had by Petition of Right of action against the Crown. If these words remain in the Bill that right is taken away. That may be right or it may be wrong, and it would not be in order for me now to argue that point, but I venture to submit with all humility that a Bill which sets out according to the title to be a Bill "to continue temporarily certain emergency enactments" is not a Bill in which a Clause making such a vital alteration in the law is in order. Therefore I beg to submit that the Bill is out of order and that the Second Reading cannot be proceeded with. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to alter the Bill a great deal, I do not think it will hurt him very much if your ruling is in my favour.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before I come to any judgment on the matter I should like to hear what the Attorney-General has to say.

Sir G. HEWART: I think it is important to read Clause 3, Sub-section (4) in relation to the only part of the Schedule to which it has any reference. As I understand, and as I respectfully submit to you, Sir, the only part to which it does refer is that which mentions Regulation 2 AB, which gives "power to take possession of premises for purposes of the Ministry of Pensions or the Ministry of Labour." That, I understand, is the scope of the Sub-section. The matter stands in my submission
in this way, the Bill is designed to continue certain statutory enactments and certain Regulations, the Regulations themselves in their turn being made under the provisions of a Statute, the Defence of the Realm Act. Some of these Regulations provided for a mode in which the price is to be determined and compensation is to be awarded and others did not, and I submit that it is quite within the scope of a Bill of which the title is
to continue temporarily certain emergency enactments and Regulations and to make provision with respect to the expiration of emergency enactments and instruments made thereunder
to fill up that gap and to point out the mode in which the compensation is to be assessed in the cases in which the Regulations do not make specific provision. Whatever may be the merits of the proposal the point of the objection which is now taken by the right hon. Baronet is that it is not within the proper scope of the Bill. I submit that the view he has expressed is wrong and that it is clearly within the scope of the Bill.

Sir D. MACLEAN: In addition to what my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) has said as to the title of the Bill, I think he might very plausibly have quoted the preamble, which sets out in separate paragraphs what this Bill purports to deal with. As far as I have been able to ascertain by a rather hurried glance there is no indication at all in that preamble of the very sweeping fundamental changes to which my right hon. Friend has referred, and I venture to suggest that the point of Order he has raised is a good one.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am disposed to agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. The title and general object of the Bill is, as he said, to continue certain enactments. and Regulations of a temporary character which were made during the War. But the proposal contained in the words of Clause 3, Subsection (4) is "that no person shall be entitled to any other remedy whatsoever whether by Petition of Right, action, or other proceeding either against the Crown or any other person." That provision does not necessarily hang upon the rest of the Bill. It does not follow because you are going to continue certain provisions for assessing compensation therefore it is necessary that you should take away from a subject the alternative right he already has The right hon. Gentleman said that the Petition
of Right dated from Magna Charta. I do not think he is quite right in that, but he is not very far wrong, as it dates, I believe, from Edward I. However that may be, the right which the subject has, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, would only be exercised within a very narrow compass, namely, cases in which the Ministry of Pensions chooses to take certain land and premises. Still, this Bill would deprive the subject of that alternative right which he has to obtain compensation, and therefore I feel bound to hold it does not come within the title or scope of the Bill. Then comes the question whether for that reason I am bound to decline to propose the Second Reading. I think the remedy would be rather too drastic. What I would suggest—and I am sure the Committee will fall in with my view—is that when the Bill goes to Committee these words should be struck out, and that the subject should be left with the alternative right Of course it is always open to Parliament to pass a Bill depriving the subject of his particular right in that regard, but I do not think it comes within the scope of this Bill, and therefore that is the course which I would suggest.

Sir D. MACLEAN: When this Bill was introduced in August it was described as an amazing Bill. With all the omissions which the learned Attorney-General has proposed that is still a proper and fitting description of it. I suggest that at the very outset, and in view of the ruling of Mr. Speaker as to what might take place in Committee, the Government would be well advised in withdrawing this Bill. Such a course would be much more in consonance with the wishes of the House, and it would be better than any other course that could be taken. But I do not suppose that that is a suggestion to which the Attorney-General will give consideration. I do, however, press it upon him, and I hope he will consider whether he cannot act upon it before this Debate comes to a termination No subject during the past few months, or indeed at the General Election in December last, excited more interest and secured more support from Members of this House than the intention at the very first available opportunity to sweep away the mass of Regulations and enactments with some of which we are dealing here. What has happened? It is very important, I suggest, that we should examine the records of the Govern
ment in this matter. After all the knowledge which the learned Attorney-General has just disclosed, the objection of the subject to those provisions which it is intended to omit from the Bill remains. With the knowledge of the constant and almost daily objections raised in this House at Question Time and on other occasions and the demands as to when these vexatious Regulations were to be swept away, the Government in August last introduced the Bill which we now have in our hands. They have learnt nothing in all these months, and they have forgotten nothing.
What is the reason for this change? I think it is perfectly obvious. The House of Commons is slowly but surely beginning to reassert itself. The Government know that it will be quite impossible to get a Second Reading for this measure unless they offer some such bait as we have now dangled before our eyes from the Treasury Bench. Let us examine what these emergency Regulations and enactments are. It is of importance to go back and see what was their foundation. We remember this, that in the early days of the War, in 1914, when this country was in fact a beleagured fortress, the House of Commons gave its assent to the sweeping away of its age-long privileges and rights, and agreed that these Regulations should be maintained only during the War. They were intended for securing public safety, and for the defence of the realm. But these reasons no longer exist. It is quite true that, in a legal sense, there is no termination of the War at the present moment. But can it be seriously argued that even what is still left in the Bill is intended for the securing of the public safety and for the defence of the realm? The real reason we know, for the maintenance of what is left in this Bill is that it would buttress the right of Government Departments to interfere with the liberty of the subject and the development of trade. The whole basis of this legislation has, however, been swept away, and I therefore reiterate what I feel is the view of the majority in this House, that the right way to deal with this is not by the continued maintenance by these methods of shackles on the public, private, and industrial life of the country, but to take this opportunity now to start afresh, and, if any of these Regulations are necessary, to bring them up in the old constitutional fashion by introducing a Bill which can be debated and argued here and be given
the necessary Parliamentary sanction. I suggest to the House of Commons that it should demand of the Government that here and now it takes that step. Let me indicate to the House what is the real position. Take the words "during the continuance of the present War." What does that mean?
There was an Act passed in 1918, defining the words, "the present War," and the result of that, as we know, is that the War does not end with the fighting, or when Peace is signed, but is only to be deemed to come to an end when the ratifications are exchanged. And not even then, because after that an Order in Council must be introduced—a very favourite method of the Government—defining the date. If the House of Commons agrees to give these powers they are going to continue for twelve months after that uncertain date has been arrived at. I hope the House will carry that fact in mind. We know that the question of public safety no longer comes in—the basis of the Clause, the maintenance of public safety and the defence of the realm has disappeared. The danger for all practical purposes has gone, and it is high time we should know what the Executive mean to do with regard to defining the end of the War. It is also quite time that this House of Commons and the people of the country reasserted their rights to their liberties. Let me deal with one other point very briefly, and that is the question of coal. What is the basis of the autocratic power which is being exercised day by day by the Coal Controller? Coal is a mineral which is the very life and soul of our trade and commerce, and, indeed, of our daily being. Where does the House of Commons stand now in regard to it? The Defence of the Realm Act was passed, and under it regulations were made subsequently giving the Food Controller certain statutory authority and powers to operate within the administration of the statutory ambit of which we have some knowledge. But how did the Executive get coal under control? It was done by a regulation which is contained in the volume which I have in my hand—Regulation 55 JJ. That gave the Board of Trade, in. connection with coal, the same powers that the Food Controller had by Statute and in the existing regulations. I think it was 9G, page 92. The Board of Trade issued their regulations and they were of opinion
that for securing the public safety and the defence of the realm—that was the basis then—they took over the control of the coal mines. They have power also to issue directions and they have delegated their directions to a gentleman who has. no statutory right at all. He is just a man nominated by the Board of Trade and given the autocratic powers of dealing with this vital matter. He has no other basis than that which I have indicated here in and through these regulations. Here they are. There are 672 pages, which by no means exhausts the number of the regulations. There are scores of supplementary volumes to this and we can see the position of a subject of the Crown looking at this Bill and at Clause 1, and what does he read?
The limitations on the continuance or operation of the enactments mentioned in the first column of the first Schedule in this Act shrill be modified in the manner and to the extent specified by the third part of that Schedule.
This House has a bounden duty in Acts which it passes which affect the rights and liberties of the subject and the trade of the country. Their first duty is to see that they are passed in something approaching plain language. This is an obvious invitation to everyone to consult at once a respectable solicitor, who will promptly instruct highly paid counsel. The whole thing of course is farcical from the view of the ordinary subject and yet in this Bill as we now have it, with all the emasculation, liberty is interfered with and trade and commerce still shackled, and with the War, as far as fighting is concerned, well past, the Executive has the audacity to assume that this House is going to give it these powers under such a Bill as this, after a somewhat perfunctory speech of tile Attorney-General.
Is the House going to do this at this time of day with the whole country ringing with protests? Wherever you go, villages and great cities are all wondering when the time is going to come when the plain man can see where he is going and what is going to be done with him. The House will be wanting in its primary duty if it gives the Executive the powers they ask in this Bill. They ought to withdraw the Bill and come back to the House with a clear idea of what they want. If these powers are necessary, and can be demonstrated by facts and arguments to be necessary, this House I am sure will grant them. There will be no factious opposi-
tion in this matter if it is clearly demonstrated. If the House lets this go it will have failed in its duty to the public. This is the first opportunity the House has had of fulfilling its pledges to the country, as I believe it will, and its fidelity to its traditions of the past—that is to see that the Executive has no more power than it can reasonably and justifiably ask for. The right hon. Baronet's services with regard to this measure have been of very great public value. If you give the Executive the power it is asking by the Second Reading of this Bill it is all over. We know what happens. The Attorney-General said they would go upstairs and listen and hear what was said with regard to objections to any further points which might be raised. I urge the House not to let its power over the measure go upstairs. Here is a good chance. If he does not seize it I am certain the people of the country will want to know the reason why.

Sir F. BANBURY: The country during the War submitted loyally to a great many enactments and a great many grievances which they are not prepared to submit to now that the War is over. They thought after nearly five years of War, shortly after an Armistice was arranged, all the troubles and grievances from which they had suffered, all the incursions of officials into their private life, all the interference which they had willingly and gladly put up with during the War would cease. For some reason which I am unable to fathom, the ratification of the Peace Treaty has been postponed, and a year, all but a fortnight, has elapsed since the date of the Armistice. The Law Officers have stated that the official announcement of the settlement of Peace, which would put an end to the Defence of the Realm Regulations, need not be made until the Treaty with the smallest belligerent has been ratified. As far as I know, the only belligerent with whom we have not yet ratified the Treaty is Turkey. Turkey is proverbially slow, and we might go on for another five or six months before the Treaty is ratified. Under the Act which deals with the date at which Peace is supposed to be concluded, the Government could, if they chose, state at once that. Peace has been concluded, in which case D.O.R.A. would be dead and buried, as has been the case in France. Let us take an example from our neighbours and let us bury this Bill
and bury D.O.R.A. She has not been a very popular personage during her existence, and I do not think there would be many people who would attend her memorial service. I ask the House to consider, before it passes the Second Reading, what it is going to do. The Blue Book, which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) has quoted, is a very big book, closely printed, and it takes a long time to read, but it only goes to 31st August, 1918. In the fifteen months which have elapsed since then a very large number of new regulations have been made. How on earth is the ordinary citizen to find out whether or not he is contravening some of these regulations?
Let us take for example one regulation which I understand from the Attorney-General will be preserved. It is on page 12 "2 JJ. Power to regulate articles of commerce other than food." We see that the limitations, qualifications, and modifications of the subjects to which extension is made are as follow:
So far as relates to articles of which possession has been taken at the passing of this Act or articles with respect to which existing Orders have been made.
Can any hon. Member tell me now to what all that refers? The Attorney-General may possibly, because he has been looking up the Bill, but I should say the Solicitor-General cannot. 2JJ, page 29, is
powers of Board of Trade as to articles other than food and as to timber, horses and horse-drawn vehicles, page 54.
You look at page 54 and you find
2 JJ. The Board of Trade shall have the like powers as are given to the Food Controller (b)under Regulations 2B, 2F to 2J inclusive, including 2GG and (c) as respects any article of commerce, not being an article of food, when it appears to the Board necessary or expedient to exercise any of its powers for the purpose of encouraging, maintaining or regulating the supply of any such article which is required by the public or by any section of the public or which is otherwise required for the public safety or the defence of the realm and these Regulations shall apply accordingly.
I read this Bill, which was introduced in August, and I mentioned in the "Times" that there was this provision in 2 JJ, and they had an article on it. I propose to read a passage from that article, which continues my investigations. I think it will take less time than if I look through all these regulations. Regulation 7 will be enough to go on with. The first part of 2 JJ is "articles other than food."
The "Times" says:
The diligent searcher will discover that (c) gives the Food Controller power to make Orders
regularising or giving directions with respect to the production, manufacture, use, consumption, transport, storage, distribution, supply, sale or purchase or other dealing in or measures to be taken with regard to any article, including Orders providing for the fixing of maximum and minimum prices.
Who on earth, on reading 2 JJ would suppose that all those powers—and 1 have only partly dealt with them— would be included in that reference? I am glad to say that the power to take away from the subject the Petition of Right will have to be dropped. Let the House note, however, that that has not been done willingly by the Government, because the Government in reply to a question of my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) said that they were going on with that. They would have liked to have altered the law to give themselves power to act as judges in their own case, because that is what it comes to. Where a, man's property is taken away, under the Bill as it stood, but for your ruling, Sir, the Government would have said, "Whatever rights you may have, your claim for compensation shall be settled by a tribunal which we shall set up." That is the sort of procedure about which Charles I. lost his head. Whether any members of the Government will be treated in the same way I do not know, but it is a very serious step for the Government to take, and especially the heads of the Government, and it may be followed by the smaller satellites in Government Departments.
Will the House allow me to give a personal explanation of what is done under the Defence of the Realm Act? I happen to be a magistrate, and a Committee set up by a Government Department summoned a certain person for certain offences under the Defence of the Realm Act. A solicitor was employed for the prosecution, and I, as a magistrate, put certain questions to him, which we need not go into. When the case was over the magistrates' clerk wrote to me and said, "The local Commissioner "—a great person living in a town some distance off—"has read your remarks in the local paper; he objects very strongly to them, and he has sent the secretary of the local committee to me to know what steps I am going to take, and what is to be done on account of your remarks. I have told him that I have no intention of discussing either the words or the action of the magistrates with anyone." On receipt of that letter
I wrote to the magistrates' clerk and I told him I thought he had done perfectly right. I also wrote to the Minister, and I pointed out to the Minister that in the old days—in the days of Henry VIII.—I am not quite sure of the dates after you said I was wrong about the Magna Charta— and I think in the clays of Charles I., if a judge or a magistrate gave a decision or made any remark which was displeasing to the Crown in any prosecution which they had undertaken, very unpleasant consequences ensued for that judge or magistrate. I pointed out to the Minister in question that that practice had fallen into desuetude, and that I thought it would be a very bad thing if, under these Defence of the Realm Acts, a Ministry, composed partly, at any rate, of ardent Liberals, should endeavour to reinstate those habits which I, as a reactionary Tory, considered to be very bad. The Minister in question acknowledged the receipt of my letter very promptly, and shortly afterwards he wrote that he had been making inquiries into the matter and regretted very much what had taken place, and had taken steps to see that such a thing did not occur again. So far as the Minister is concerned I should like to thank him for the courteous way in which he received my letter and for the action he took. But that does not alter the case Supposing it had been a magistrate who was not a Member of the House of Commons. What would have happened then? He might have been a nervous person, frightened at receiving a threatening letter from a great official in a Government Department, and that might have altered the whole course of justice. As it happened, the official in question made a mistake in picking out me upon whom to exercise this particular form of bullying a magistrate.
I only point out this to show the evil which may result from the continuation of these particular Acts. We have found an evil even with the Attorney-General, who is a most amiable man as a rule. He was endeavouring to abolish the Petition of Right, which dates from the time of Edward III. His evil example is being followed by officials of various Departments, and whenever anybody such as a magistrate or a judge ventures to say or do anything which is displeasing to them their actions are to be called into question. It is quite true that De Keyser's Hotel have exercised their right under the Petition of Right, and it is also quite true
that their case has gone to the House of Lords. I would not venture to contradict anything the Attorney-General said, but I understood the Court of Appeal found in their favour.

Sir G. HEWART: I do not deny that. What I said was that the Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal were not unanimous.

Sir F. BANBURY: The fact remains that they found in their favour, whether or not certain of the learned lords were not in agreement with their learned brothers. This Clause is to be left out, but if it had not been left out I am not at all sure that it would not have been possible to have over-ridden the decision of the House of Lords. I had intended to move the rejection of the measure, and I may be obliged to do that, but before I do so I would suggest another course to the Government. The Government have not had a very good time of it, if I may put it quite pleasantly, with this Bill. They were going to take the Second Reading on the Bank Holiday, when the majority of Members were on the Terrace looking at the procession of boats which was going along. I happened to have contracted the bad habit of reading Bills in the old days, and as I had read this Bill I made a little protest, and I am glad that the Government acceded to my protest and did not take the Bill. That was what happened on the first occasion, so that the Bill did not get along smoothly. Now one of the principal Clauses of the Bill is to be dropped, and the Attorney-General has recited a large number of provisions which are to be dropped. I listened very attentively to what the Attorney-General said, but I fail to understand what the new Bill is going to be like or what provisions are to be dropped. I am not casting any reflection upon the Attorney-General, but it was quite impossible for Members of this House or the public to know what is to be done by merely hearing the Attorney-General say that on page 10 certain things would be omitted and that on page 4 certain things would be retained. It is impossible to know what. we are asked to vote upon. Therefore, I suggest that as this is an extremely important Bill in which the public have very great interest, because though the Attorney-General says that two years' imprisonment with hard labour is a very mild penalty—

Sir G. HEWART: I must correct that slight mistake. What I said was that it was less than capital punishment.

Sir F. BANBURY: I accept the statement of the Attorney-General, but my recollection was that the Attorney-General said that during the War there was penal servitude for life, there was capital punishment, and there were other punishments which were very severe, but I gathered that he considered that coming down to two years' hard labour was a very great drop. I have never experienced two years' hard labour or any form of hard labour except in this House; but I have been told, and I believe it is correct, that two years' hard labour is about the severest sentence you can inflict upon anyone, and that it is far more severe than five years' penal servitude. Whether that is so or not., I do not know, but I think I am right in saying that judges are very reluctant to impose a term of two years' hard labour upon any person. With these penalties in the Bill is it not right and is it not desirable that this Bill should be withdrawn, and that a Bill should be brought forward, without reference to 2 J and C B, clearly stating that it may be necessary for six months or any other period to continue certain things, and making it quite plain what it is for which people may run the risk of two years' hard labour. Instead of moving the rejection of the Bill, I think that would be a much better course; but I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, would accept that Motion. I would prefer it instead of moving the rejection of the Bill. The advantage of that would be that the Bill world not be killed. If the Bill was defeated I do not know how far it would prevent the Government bringing in another Bill during this Session. That would not ensue if the course I suggest were adopted. I do not think the Government would lose anything by it, because if this Bill was sent to a Committee upstairs that Committee would not consist of more than thirty people, and it might be difficult to get a full attendance, and when it came back hare, on Report, there would be a great deal of discussion. Therefore, it would be far better in the interests of the country—and we must think something of the country—that we should see in black and white what it is the Government propose to do. Under the circumstances, I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Sir F. Banbury.]

7.0. P.M.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The right hon. Baronet, in the course of his speech, made one or two suggestions which were almost as strange as his historical references. He told us, for instance, that in some strange way, under these powers which the House were asked to pass, an official would be able to say to a subject, "If you do not take care the same sort of thing will happen to you as happened in, the time of Charles II., and you will lose your head."[An HON. MEMBER:"Charles II.‡"] This was not the case of a king, but of one of his subjects, losing 7.0 P.M. his head. The right hon.Baronet, a little later on, came nearer to the truth of the present actual situation when he stated that the danger was not that subjects would lose their heads, but that it would be the unfortunate Ministers of the Crown who would be placed in that position by an exasperated public. That may be possible, but I hope it will not happen. I am going to try to-day very briefly to prove to the House what I said yesterday, namely, how difficult it is to explain these things in such a way that the House will understand exactly what is the issue. In my opinion, we have not been debating at all the points which this Bill is intended to carry out. My right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean) made a very impassioned speech. I almost enjoyed it, and it seemed to me that the newspapers of to-morrow will not be under the necessity of writing any leaders; they will only have to take the speech of my right hon. Friend, with its references to the liberty of the subject and all the rest of it, and their newspaper is complete. My right hon. Friend dwelt upon a great many of the evils which are in this Bill, but obviously, in so far as you are dealing with particular points, those are subjects for discussion in Committee, and have nothing to do with the general question of the Second Reading of the Bill, if there be a necessity at all for a measure of this character. This is not, as the speeches would lead us to suppose, some example of the way in which "tyranny grows on what it feeds," an example of a Government which so rejoiced in its arbitrary powers during the War that without any
necessity it wishes to continue them now that we have reached the stage of peace. If that were so, the members of the Government would be strange human beings, and they would deserve all, and more than all, that has been said in the speeches so far. What are the facts? We have had, as the House. knows, five years of terrible war. During the course of that War the whole trade and industry of this country was upset. What I want to put to my right hon. Friend and to the House is this: Does he, really think that the time has come now when we are able to do away with all that, and go back to the ordinary methods of private trading exactly as they were before the War? If that were possible,. I should desire nothing better, but is. there a man in this House, with any power of thinking at all, who can picture to himself what the conditions of this. country would be to-morrow, or a month hence, if every one of these Regulations were suddenly withdrawn and everything were left to go on precisely as individual interests and desires would dictate?

Sir D. MACLEAN: That cannot happen.

Mr. BONAR LAW: But it can, as soon as the Treaty is ratified. Just listen to that as an example of the kind of arguments which have been used against this Bill. Why is it that we are asking that this Bill should be carried now? it is because there is the possibility that, before the House meet again after the close of this Session, peace will be ratified, and this condition of things will have happened. If we were certain—I think it is possible, and perhaps even probable—that the ratification would not take place until March, I should be delighted, on behalf of the Government, to withdraw this Bill altogether, and introduce it at the beginning of the next Session. There would be immense advantages in doing that. What is the history of this Bill? A Committee representing the Departments concerned met in, I think, June el July of last year, and went carefully into all these extraordinary provisions which had grown up under the conditions of war. The idea of that Committee was to ask for the continuance only of those provisions which were actually indispensable. Those provisions were brought before them by the Departments, and the Committee cut them down enormously. What has happened since? The right
hon. Baronet has pointed out that the Government were not very fortunate the day on which they first introduced the Bill. In the interval that has passed, we have found that a number of the regulations which we thought were then necessary, and which I believe were then necessary, are no longer necessary. In the same way, if we could wait until the beginning of next Session, I have not the smallest doubt that a very large number of these Schedules could be taken out. But see what the position is.
My right hon. Friend (Sir Donald Maclean), as an illustration of the fearfulness of what we are proposing to do, mentioned the case of coal—an industry on which the life of the country depends. But I am afraid that he really had not thought about the matter. What does it mean? He would leave coal free. I wish we could, but what would be the result? At this moment, as the House knows, there is not enough coal available to meet the absolute necessities of this country. I do not say whether we made the best regulations that could be made I would remind the House that we were passing through a war, and that these things had to be done pretty hurriedly. Very likely we did not adopt the best methods, or the methods that we should have adopted if we could have had several months to consider the matter. But suppose that my right hon. Friend's suggestions were adopted, and we left the insufficient supplies of coal now available to the conditions of ordinary trade. There would be so great a shortage of coal that the price would reach a figure which no man can forecast.
It is all very well to listen to this kind of talk about the arbitrariness of the Government. That is easy enough, but do hon. Members really picture to themselves such a condition of things as I have described? Does the House realise that all the considerations which are in the minds of hon. Members, and have been expressed to-day, are constantly in our minds also, and are constantly under the consideration of members of the Government? Does anyone suppose that we like such conditions as obtain at present, when you have to regulate the price of foodstuffs, when the Government itself has to buy a large part of what comes into this country, and when many other things are being done which in our judgment, and I believe in the judg-
ment of every member of the Government, are the very reverse of what is the real national interest of this country? Do you imagine that we want to continue that for a moment longer than the necessities of the case require? Of course we do not.
There is difference of opinion in this House, as everywhere else, as to the necessity of continuing some of these controls. We are not all of one opinion about that in the Government. There is often discussion, and we do not all take the same view, though after discussion we come to an agreement as to what is the best thing to be done. But that has nothing to do with this Bill. In Committee the Bill can be discussed on its merits and amended as the Members of this House will decree. The members of the Government may say that this regulation or that regulation is no longer necessary, and the House will be free to say what shall continue and what shall not. And it is not merely a question of saying that the control shall or shall not go off. If the House does not approve of the form of any regulation, it will be perfectly free to make any modification which it pleases.
I do not think it is really worth taking up the time of the House to dwell upon the kind of questions which have been raised by the right hon. Baronet, or upon the difficulty of understanding the provisions as they appear in this Bill. These regulations are sent out to the people who arc chiefly affected by them, and they are perfectly plain. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] They are as plain as an Act of Parliament. What is the alternative from that point of view The alternative is, that every one of these regulations which it is decided to continue shall be defined in the Bill. I do not think that that would make it any simpler for those who have to deal with it. Moreover, it must he remembered that all this is temporary. Hon. Members speak as if it were a question of twelve months, but it is not; it is a question of twelve months as a maximum. The fact that already we have thought it to be unnecessary to include a number of provisions which in our view were necessary three or four months ago is in itself a proof that many more will go out in a much shorter time than twelve months. Is it worth while, for a temporary purpose like that, to produce a Bill the length of which I should not like to describe? It would not make it any plainer to those affected by it. But if the House take that view, if they think it is
going to make it plainer, it is easy to do that after passing the Second Reading. Instead of barely mentioning these provisions, you can put into the Bill exact words defining every one of these regulations, which I understand is what the right hon. Baronet would wish.

Sir F. BANBURY: The House itself has no knowledge of what it is passing. What the right hon. Gentleman suggests could only be done in Committee. The Committee, would know, but the House does not know.

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend seems to be almost as well informed about the procedure of this House as about our history. Whatever the Committee does will, of course, come back to the House on Report.

Sir F. BANBURY: I mean that the House does not know now, when passing the Second Reading.

Mr. BONAR LAW: That really only enables me to make plainer the point wanted to put. What we are asking the House to do now is not to approve of the continuance of all the matters which are referred to in this Schedule. We are leaving to the House in the usual way full power to modify them in any manner in which it thinks right. All that we are asking the House to do now is to recognise what I should have thought was an elementary fact, namely, that if peace were to come before this Bill or some Bill like it had been carried into effect there would be chaos, and the conditions would be so terrible that we could not contemplate them. All that we are asking is that the House, by granting the Second Reading of this Bill, should recognise that some of these regulations that have grown up during the War must be continued for a certain length of time until we get back to normal conditions. That is all that the Second Reading of the Bill means.
As I have already said, nobody likes this method of doing business. You cannot possibly have restrictions of this kind without the anomalies of them, not to speak of anything more serious, being felt by immense numbers of our people. They dislike them, and they desire to get rid of them. So do we, but it is a question how soon we can get rid of them. We have got back to peace industry much more rapidly, I am glad to say, than I thought was possible at the time that the War came to an end. We have done marvellously
in that way, and, in my opinion, much better than any other belligerent in the world. I think that is true, and the sooner we can get completely back the better; but we are not completely back yet, and unless the House enables us during this Session to pass a Bill of this kind we do run a risk. I do not put it higher than that. I am afraid, as I have already said, that probably ratification will not take place till the second or third month of next year. If we were sure of that we would withdraw this Bill now with pleasure, and, I believe, with profit, both to the country and the Government. We are not sure, and, not being sure, we cannot take the risk.

Sir D. MACLEAN: You take powers for twelve months.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said that they are the maximum powers. They can be made less than twelve months, and if in Committee any method can be suggested in the case of particular Regulations either of making the period shorter or by which the House should have a say as to whether or not they should be continued, we are perfectly ready to consider it. What we are not ready to consider is that the country should run the risk of being left without any of these regulations at the time when peace is ratified. We cannot take that risk, and, what is more, we are not going to withdraw this Bill. The house of Commons has got to make up its mind whether or not the kind of clatter outside, which is reflected so much in some of the new speeches to which we have listened, that this Government have not the confidence either of tile House or the country, is true. It has got to make up its mind about it, and I say to the House of Commons: We are asking for no powers which the necessities of the situation do not demand, and I am perfectly certain that whatever Government was on this bench would take the same view, and would insist upon having these powers. I put it to the House of Commons whether or not 'it intends to give them to us.

Lord HUGH CECIL: My right hon. Friend has made, as he invariably does, a most conciliatory speech, and everyone feels the force of what he said in respect of certain provisions within the ambit of this Bill. Undoubtedly, you cannot immediately revert to a complete system of ordinary unregulated liberty in respect of
trade and commerce and some other matters. It is my own personal conviction that the Government would do wisely to abolish all control over trade except in those articles of first necessity which are rationed. I do not believe that the system of control except over rationed articles is wise. There are a certain number of articles for which there is a maximum price fixed and for which there is no rationing system. I believe that such regulations are profoundly unwise, because, on the one hand, you do not stimulate production as you would by a rise in price, and, on the other hand, you do not give that advantage to poor people that the rationing system gives. My right hon. Friend argues that there is great danger if you postpone this Bill to the spring Session that ratification may come —he speaks of it as if it might come by the operation of natural law, like an earthquake—at an unexpected and inconvenient moment, in which case chaos would ensue, but he does injustice to his own legislative skill. The Bill determining the date on which the War is to come to an end provides that it is to be as near as may be—the date to be fixed by Order in Council—to the final ratification of peace. Obviously, that is a provision inserted precisely to meet the case which he has in view. If Parliament should happen to be out of Session at the time when the official ratification is exchanged, it would be open to the Government to postpone for the matter of a few weeks the active operation of the termination of the War until Parliament met and had an opportunity of dealing with the situation. Therefore, there really is no danger of it coining upon us like a bolt out of the blue. My right hon. Friend made some rather remarkable statements. He said that if the Bill could be postponed three months —he did not think it feasible—he anticipated that it would be possible to reduce it still further. What a remarkable statement coming from a Minister recommending a Bill which in some cases is to operate for six months and in others for twelve months—well, for a maximum of twelve months ‡ If in a few months time you would be able to reduce it still more, surely you might at this stage accept a shorter term.

Mr. BON AR LAW: My Noble Friend, I am sure, does not wish to misunderstand me; I do not say misrepresent me. I not
only said that we had already taken away a number because of the lapse of time, and that if we could wait until the beginning of the Session it was possible that a further number could be taken out, but 1 also, added that in Committee we would be perfectly ready to consider any suggestions for a shorter time or for any other method.

Lord H. CECIL: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I will say one word about the convenience of the procedure as distinct from the actual merits of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, by way of a general statement, said that the Government wanted to get rid of these Regulations as much as anyone. I have not the least doubt that is a perfectly sincere statement, but surely my right hon. Friend does not quite allow for human nature, and, in particular, for official human nature. One does not doubt for a moment that either my right hon. Friend or the various officials who advise him desire the public good, or that they are entirely patriotic people who wish to make the government of the country as well as possible, but there is a natural bias in the official mind in favour of Regulations. The public have got to the point when they do not want the official to be the judge in his own case. They want Parliament to be the judge. They want the official to be obliged to come to Parliament and say, "It is necessary for this thing to be done," and for Parliament to decide whether it should be done, not because the official is not a perfectly patriotic person, but because his bias is always in favour of management and control. I confess that, in my view, it would have been a better procedure if the Bill had been made much longer. My right hon. Friend says that all this can be done in Committee. He says that you can then extend the Bill, if you like, so as to recite at full length all the regulations, or you can alter the terms of the regulations which are to continue, and omit those which you think are irrelevant. It is true that the Committee can do a great deal of that kind, but I do not know whether he has considered what an inconvenient process that would be, or how long the Debates in Committee without the smallest obstruction would necessarily be if the course which lie recommends were adopted. Anyone would be able to put down Amendments to carry Out his own particular view, and it would be exceedingly difficult in the six weeks which remain of this Session to carry the Bill
through Committee. Would it not be far better and far more in accordance with' Parliamentary practice if the Government withdrew the Bill now and brought it in again in a shape, which, after listening to this discussion, they think will most conciliate the wishes of the House. If that were done, my right hon. Friend would not only have made a conciliatory speech, but he would also have done a very conciliatory thing which we should all appreciate. I do not know whether I am in order in drawing your attention to a ruling by a previous Speaker when, on 16th August, 1889, the attention of Mr. Speaker Peel was called to very extensive Amendments which it was contemplated that the Government would introduce in a Bill, he said
I could not stop this Bill on a point of Order as constituting a new Bill, but I do unhesitatingly affirm that the practice of the House has been in a case of this kind to withdraw the old Bill and then to introduce a new Bill in the amended form.
The right hon. Gentleman has to-day foreshadowed very considerable Amendments, and you yourself have ruled that a particular provision of the Bill is out of order altogether. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) was not very happily inspired when he spoke of my right hon. Friend's (Sir F. Banbury) knowledge of procedure on a Bill on which the Government were entirely in the wrong, and on which my right hon. Friend was entirely in the right. I am anxious to submit to you whether in this particular case the Chair might not express an opinion that it would be more in accordance with Parliamentary practice to withdraw a Bill which must be amended and reintroduce it in a form substantially that in which the Government hope to pass it. If that were done, the Debates in Committee would be shorter and much more intelligible, and there would be much less chance of misunderstandings and misapprehensions and much less difficulty in the Committee, and afterwards the House, finding its way through the Bill, and things would run more smoothly. I submit that as an argument relevant to this question of Adjournment which I understand my right hon. Friend has moved, not as rejecting the Bill, hut as enabling the Government to withdraw the Bill and to bring it in in another shape more acceptable, not merely to the House, but to their own opinions upon second thought. In that sense I shall support my right hon. Friend if he presses his Motion to a Division.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill is the Bill of the Government, and they can introduce it in whatever shape they think best, or they can reintroduce it in another shape if they think well. There is, however, a form which is not often used in this House, but which can be used if desired. The Bill can be committed pro formâ for the purpose of inserting the Government Amendments, and it can then be reprinted. The Attorney-General to-day has suggested a large number of Amendments in the shape of omissions. If the Bill be committed to a Committee co of this House pro formâ the whole of those Amendments would be taken as one question. Those Amendments would be made, the Bill would be reprinted, and it would then appear in the amended form in which it would go to the Committee upstairs. That is a course that could be followed. It has not to my knowledge been followed often, but I do remember some instances in which it has been followed.

Sir WATSON RUTHERFORD: May I point out that when this Bill was introduced all classes of the commercial community without exception were practically horrified. The Regulations and Acts of Parliament which arc dealt with in this Bill are 123 in number, and some of those 123 are rather long, intricate and involved, and the problem which is before anyone who really wishes to understand what is proposed to be done by this Bill would take a vast amount of time and attention to solve. The objections which were very largely made to the Bill and were in the minds of the commercial community will he removed after listening to the speech of the Leader of the House, because lie has pointed out that it is intended that this period of twelve months shall not he a fixture, and in fact that the main Clause of the Bill, which makes all these regulations as altered definite for twelve months, is to be modified in some manner which the Government will explain to us later. Each of these regulations which are dealt with here has been altered from time to time during the War, many of them very drastically. If this Bill is to be passed in this form, then for twelve months they will become incapable of further alteration without a further Act of Parliament.

Sir G. HEWART: There is the proviso to Clause 3.

Sir W. RUTHERFORD: That proviso does not go as far as the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think. The
difficulty is we are to have a vast number of these regulations continued definitely for twelve months unless there is some method of getting rid of them meantime, or modifying them, which could hardly be done without another Act of Parliament; and we are also to have another large number of them, and everybody will ask why. I am one of those who are of opinion that probably there are not more than two or three at the very outside out of the whole 123 that require to be continued for five minutes. There is the strongest possible objection in all commercial circles to the whole of these regulations. People who are acquainted with the details inside and outside of these businesses tell me, and I believe it, that the articles would be cheaper and commerce would be better even now without these regulations. They are to be continued however in some shape or other until Peace is ratified and then to go on for a period of twelve or six months. But if you are to have these advantages which the Leader of the House has pointed out, if there is to be some way of getting rid of them earlier, if we are to have an opportunity in Committee of investigating each of these items, then I think our best plan to-night will be to pass the Bill. The sooner we get to work the better, because the Committee work on this Bill is going to take all the rest of this Session if we do our work thoroughly and properly.

Major L. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman should not be under any delusion that muse of us who had ourselves unable to support him at tills moment shall be unable to do so out of any want of loyalty to aim. It will only be because I feel that he has not so far correctly understood our point of view. What is there to prevent him reconsidering his decision and withdrawing this Bill to-night and re-introducing another Bill in a form that people can understand, stating clearly on the face of it what is out and what is in, the week after next, and then pressing that Bill through its stages this Session? My point of view is not met by the suggestion as far as I understood it that you, Sir, made just now. My objection is an objection to being asked to record my vote blindfolded. I do not know what I am voting about if I vote for the Second Reading of this measure. Therefore I cannot vote for it, and if my right hon. Friend proceeds to a Division for the Ad
journment, I shall feel bound to support him. I shall be extremely reluctant to do that. I cannot conceive why my right hon. Friend cannot give way. It will cost the Government nothing and it will avoid our being asked to betray our consciences on this occasion.

Mr. THOMAS: No one from our Benches has taken part in this Debate for the very obvious reason that the procedure has taken a very different turn from what we anticipated. Shortly, there are two Clauses which it is proposed to retain to which we take very strong exception. The first Clause, apart from the difficulty of what is taken in and what is left out, to which we object, is 6 A, which gives power to exempt factories and workshops from the provisions of the Act of 1901. Shortly, that means this: During the War the provisions of this particular Act, which were primarily directed towards safety, were abrogated, and we cannot understand why in this Bill we have the Government now proposing still to retain the power which they took for a very special reason, and which was accepted by the working classes at the time. Then on page 18 the power of search is retained. I understand that during the past six months the power, which was exercised primarily under the authority of the Home Secretary, has resulted in trade union secretaries being searched with no vestige of evidence of any kind against them. And still we find that this power is retained.
Then the real fundamental objection is this. After all, this House ought to be in a position to know exactly what it is passing. The Debate, and the items which have been struck out, have shown clearly that the House does not know, and that no Member of this House, if the Second Reading were passed, would be in a position to say what he had voted for and what he had not. That is a position which no Member ought to tolerate. It. could not be justified outside. It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say that a time may come when the Government may challenge Parliament to say what is really the position. I can quite understand that statement being made. But it should be followed by this statement: that the right hon. Gentleman would have no right to say to this House, "You shall go into the Lobby and vote for something that you could not even explain to your constituents." That
would be the position of every Member of this House, from the Attorney-General downwards. The Attorney-General himself put an interpretation that was ruled out by Mr. Speaker, which showed clearly that the Bill was out of order. Another suggestion was made that would have got over the difficulty. That was dropped. The final suggestion that has been made is that all the alterations can take place in Committee. Every Member of this House will not be on the Committee. Many Members may feel keenly on points which they would like to put in Committee, but they would not be present at the Committee stage to do so. For all those reasons I would suggest that the Government would be wrong if they interpreted this merely as an attack upon them. It is nothing of the kind. It is the prerogative and the right of Members to know exactly what they are voting for. They do not know what they are voting for in giving a Second Reading to this Bill. For that reason I suggest respectfully that the Government should withdraw and bring in a Bill setting everything out.

Sir R. COOPER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wild help some of us who arc anxious to support the Government on the main principle which underlies the Bill on which he is making his appeal to the Mouse, but who, on the other hand, have a very strong objection to what they conceive to be certain objectionable elements in this Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has said, only a certain number can be on the Committee, and I would ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the peculiar position in which this Bill is at present, he would undertake that when we come to the Report stage a full and fair opportunity will be given to Members of this House to move Amendments which they think proper Time after time one finds on the Report stage that the time for moving Amendments is greatly curtailed, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether on Report stage we shall have a full and fair opportunity of moving such Amendments as we think desirable.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I hardly think that that is a suggestion which needs a statement in reply. The only way in which the Government could interfere with the Report stage is by moving the Closure. [An HON. MEMBER: Selection.") We have nothing to do with the selection. We
have hardly ever moved the Closure, and we shall certainly be very unwilling to move it on a Bill of this kind. That is the only answer possible.

Mr. R. McNEILL: The right lion. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Ripon (Major E. Wood) have stated that in voting for the Second Reading of this Bill no Member of this house would know exactly what he was voting for. I think that that is so. But there is this very great distinction to be drawn, bearing in mind what the Attorney-General has said, that a considerable amount will be cut out of the Bill as it is printed and in our hands. If he had said that certain Amendments which he had read out were going to be inserted in the Bill there would have been a great grievance on the part of Members, who would have had no means of keeping in mind what those Amendments were. What we do know is that, at all events, there is. nothing being put into this Bill as it stands, and that a good deal has been taken out. Therefore, I do not think there is really any great grievance on the pars of hon. Members so far as the Second. Reading is concerned, when they know that the maximum for which they are voting is in their hands and that any Amendments that are to be made will be by way of omission. I myself have taken the trouble to compare the regulations with those which are being continued, and I have come to the conclusion that if the ratification of Peace were suddenly to take place and none of these regulations were continued, it would be nothing short of disastrous to the country. I believe the feeling of people outside and of the Press would be ten times more indignant with the Government for allowing regulations to be dropped than it would be at the continuance of many of them. I have no hesitation in voting for the Government on this occasion.

Sir R. ADKINS: I was a member of a Committee which went into these matters. My attitude is this: What was recommended or even acquiesced in last February may very well have a quite different view taken of it now, nine or ten months later. But after what has been said by the Leader of the House it is surely clear, is it not, that those who vote on this occasion for the Second Beading are merely voting that some regulations must be continued for a limited time, not necessarily the maximum laid down in the Bill?
I say unhesitatingly that there are many things in this Bill which I shall vote against if I am on the Committee, or if they come down on Report—some which 1 would have endured nine or ten months ago, and which are no longer necessary but wrong. None the less, some of them,

fewer every month, are now necessary. We can only get to the proper examination of those if the Second Reading is now passed.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 283.

Division No. 1 16.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayward, Major Evan
Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Richardson, R. (Houghton)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hinds, John
Remertson, J.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Bramsden, Sir T.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Sitch, C. H.


Briant, F.
Hogge, J. M.
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Holmes, J.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Spoor, B. G,


Cape, Tom
Johnstone, J.
Swan, J. E. C.


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tnomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir 0. (Anglesey)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commanuer
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Tootill, Robert


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Waterson, A. E.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Lunn, William
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Finney. Samuel
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wignall, James


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Williams, A. (Cnnsett, Durham)


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Grundy, T. W.
Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C
Williams, Coi. P. (Middlesbrough)


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York.)
Murray. Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Gwynne, R. S.
Newbould, A. E.
Wood, Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
O'Grady, James



Hall, R.-Adml. Sir W.R. (Lpl, W. Derby)
Parkingson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Sir F.


Halles, E.
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Banbury and Major E. Wood.


Hartshorn, V.
Ress, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)



Hayday, A.




NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Campion, Colonel W. R.
Doyle, N. Grattan


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Du Pre, Colonel W. B.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Carr, W. T.
Edge, Captain William


Amery, Lieut.-Colonel L. C. M, S
Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Edwards, A. Clement (East Ham, S.)


Archdale, Edward M.
Casey, T. W.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Armitage, Robert
Cautley, H enry Strother
Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)


Astbury, Lieui.-Com. F. W.
Cayzer, Major H. R.
Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)


Atkey, A. R.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Eyres-Monsell, Commander


Baird, John Lawrence
Chadwick, R. Burton
Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godtray


Baldwin, Stanley
Chautherlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Fell, Sir Arthur


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Barnston, Major H.
Clay. Captain H. H. Spender
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Clough, R.
Forestier-Walker, L.


Beckett, H on. Gervase
Coats, Sir Stuart
Forrest, W.


Bell, Lt.-Ccl. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Cobb, Sir Cyrii
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Betterton, H. B.
Ceckerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.


Bird, Alfred
Cohen, Major. J. B. B.
Gardiner, J. (Perth)


Blades, Sir George R
Colfax, Major W. P.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)


Blair, Major Reginald
Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Blase, T. A.
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Gilbert. James Daniel


Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.
Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Berwick, Major G. 0.
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Glyn, Major R.


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith
Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Gray, Major E.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Courthope, Major George Loyd
Grayson, Lieut.-Col. H. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Greame, Major P. Lloyd


Brassey, H. L. C.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Green, A. (Derby)


Breese, Major C. E.
Davidson, Major-Gen. Sir John H.
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar


Bridgeman, William Clive
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Greig, Colonel James William


Briggs, Harold
Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Gretton, Colonel John


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Davies. Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Griggs. Sir Peter


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Buckley. Lleut.-Colonel A.
Dawes, J. H.
Hacking, Captain D. H.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Dean, Com. P. T.
Hallwood, A.


Burden, Colonel Rowland
Dennis, J. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Dewhurst, Lieut,-Commander H.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)


Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Dockrell, Sir M.
Hanna, G. B.


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Donald, T.
Hanson, Sir Charles


Harmsworth, Cecil R. (Luton, Beds.)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Seeger, Sir William


Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)
Mcore-brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Seddon, James


Hennessy, Major G.
Morden, Colonel H. Grant
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Right Hon. John


Henry, uenis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Show, Captain W. T.([...]marnock)


Heruert, uenniss (Hertford)
Morris, Richard
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Hewarc, Ht. non. Sir Gordon
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Shorn, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castie-on-T., W.)


Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.
Mosley, Oswald
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Stealer, Captain Sir Beville


Hood, Joseph
Murcnison, C. K.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (Ashton)


Hope, harry (Stirling)
Murray, Maj. C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Stanley, Col. H. G. F. (Preston)


Hope, James Fazatan (Sheffield)
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Stanton, Charles Butt


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (M idlothian)
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Hopkinson, Austin (Mossiey)
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Horne, Sir Robert (Hilitlead)
Nall, Major Joseph
Stewart, Gershom


Howard, Major S. G.
Neal, Arthur
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Nelson, R. F. W. R.
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.)
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.


Hurd. P. A.
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Sutherland, Sir William


Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Jackson, Lt,-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Jameson, Major J. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Tickler, Thomas George


Jophcott, A. R.
Pearce, Sir William
Waddington, R.


lesson, C.
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Wallace, J.


Jodrell, N. P.
Peel Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Walton, J. (York, Dan Valley)


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Perring, William George
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Jones, J. Towyri (Carmarthen)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Wardle, George J.


Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Waring, Major Walter


Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Preston, W. R.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Kidd, James
Prescott, Major W. H.
Weigall, Lt.-Colonel W. E. G. A.


King, Commander Douglas
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Weston, Colonel John W.


Klnloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Purchase, H. G.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Knights, Captain H.
Rae, H. Norman
Whitla, Sir William


Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Rattan, Peter Wilson
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Ramsdon, G. T.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Williams, Lt-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.
Williams, Lt.-Col, Sir R. (Banbury)


Long, Rt. Hem. Walter
Rees, Sir J. D.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Lorden, Jahn William
Reid, D. D.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Remnant, Colonel Sir James
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Lowe, Sir F. W.
Tendon, Athelstan
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Lynn. R. J.
Renwick, G.
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks,)


M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Richardson, Sir Albion (Peekham)
Wilson-Fox, Henry


M'Guffin, Samuel
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Weimer, Viscount


M'Laren. Hon. H. D. (Bosworth)
Rodger, A. K.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Rothschild, Lionel de
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)


McMicking. Major Gilbert
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.
Worsfold, T. Cato


McNeill. Ronald (Canterbury)
Rowlands, James
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Macquisten, F. A.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Magnus, Sir Philip
Rutherford Col. Sir J. (Darwen)
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Mallalieu, Frederick William
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge H ill)
Young. William (Perth and Kinross)


Matthews, David
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Younger, Sir George


Mlldmay, Col Rt, Hon. Francis B.
Sanders, Colone Robert Arthur



Moles, Thomas
Scott, A. M. (Gles., Bridgeton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. 


Molson, Major John Eisdalo
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Talbot and Mr. J. Parker.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

8.0 P.M.

Lord H. CECIL: I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether the Government proposed to put this Bill into Committee, pro Formâ, as suggested by Mr. Speaker, in order to introduce their own Amendments before the Bill goes before the Committee upstairs?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry I cannot recommend the House to adopt that suggestion. After all, in spite of all the objections, I think it will be found that there will not be much difficulty in going on with this Bill in the ordinary way. There is a great deal of business to be done and we wish to rise at a reasonable
time before Christmas, and, therefore, I do not think it can be done. I am sorry I cannot agree to that course.

Mr. HOGGE: So far we have only had a limited discussion on the question whether this Debate should he adjourned or not. There is a great deal of material in this measure which some of us wish to discuss. The initial point which has not yet been replied to by my right hon. Friends opposite deals with the question of time. It has been said that something might happen on the ratification of peace which would leave the country in a rather perilous condition. There is one thing we are entitled to demand from the Government before we give them a Second Beading of this Bill, and that is some assurance from them about the date of
the ratification of peace. Members who have taken part in the discussion have not perhaps realised exactly what is laid down in what is known as the Ratification Articles. There are two documents which deal with this point, and from the first one I propose to quote a single sentence. Under the Termination of the Present War Definition Act, 1918, His Majesty in Council may declare what date is to be treated as the termination of the present War, and it is provided that
the date so declared shall be as nearly as may be the date of the exchange or deposit of the ratifications of the Treaty or Treaties of peace.
That is an event which we are told may come upon us so suddenly that the nation may be unprepared for the situation which will arise, but if any member of the Committee takes the trouble to look up the treaty of peace relating to ratification they will find that it is not the date of the ratification of peace that matters, but the date on which the ratifications are deposited in Paris. I will read a sentence from the Treaty of Peace which relates to this question of ratification, and the passage is as follows—
The deposit of ratifications shall be made at Paris as soon as possible. Powers of which the seat of government is outside Europe will be entitled merely to inform the Government of the French Republic through their diplomatic representative at Paris that their ratification has been given; in that case they must transmit the instrument of ratification as soon as possible. A first procès verbal of the deposits of ratification will be drawn up as soon as the Treaty has been ratified by Germany on the one hand, and by those of the principal Allied and Associated Powers on the other hand.
Then come the important words—
From the date of this first procès verbal the Treaty will come into force between the high contracting parties who have ratified it. For the determination of all periods of time provided for in the present Treaty this date will be the date of coming into force of the Treaty.
If that interpretation of the dates which are applicable to the ratification of peace are correct, it is manifestly absurd on the part of the Leader of the House and the Government to throw dust into the eyes both of the House and the public by alleging that things may arise so suddenly that they would not know where they are. My right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir G. Hewart), whose attention must be called to these matters as a Law Officer of the Crown, will know and agree that a considerable period must elapse between the
ratification of peace and the deposit in Paris of the prosès verbal. if it is true as suggested by the Government that the mere ratification should take place in March of next year, then this House might not be in Session, and a difficulty might arise in dealing with the situation. If it were true that Parliament would not be in Session the only period of difficulty would be the period between the date on which the House rises for the Christmas Recess and the date we resume in February. It is suggested that the period provided for would give the Government time to turn round, but it does not take the Government much time to turn round at any time on any subject. The reason I made that point is that although a great deal has been said on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Debate about the maximum time, what the Government seek is the maximum of twelve months over and above the date on which the first proces verbal is made in Paris. That might easily be a period of anything from eighteen months to a couple of years, and that is what the Government are asking for in submitting this Bill.
What are they asking power to do? We have gone through them seriatim, and although there are twenty pages in this Bill, only five are occupied with general matters and fifteen with particular instances in which the Defence of the Realm Act is in operation. Members of the-House have gone through with the Attorney-General those fifteen pages of references to powers which are to be continued, and we have taken out a few. After all, we have only taken out four in the Schedule, but we have done better in the second half; but in the third we have not taken very many. In fact, it was only in one case that the Attorney-General found it easier to tell us what was retained than what was left out. If you look at some of the powers still to be retained, they raise questions which ought not to be left to discussion in Committee. There is a question of vital importance to the liberty of the subject which ought to have been restored long ago. On page 18 there are two, powers which affect the individual very closely, and which have been slightly referred to already in the course of the Debate. Take No. 51 and 55 on page 18, which deal with the power of search and power of arrest, and the limitations to be put upon the power of search. In England and Wales this will only now be with the consent of the Secretary of State, and
in Scotland only with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland. With regard to the powers of arrest, it is limited so far to offences continued by this Act as if in proviso (b) the words
and in any case forthwith after the termination of the present war
were omitted.
We have had enough during the War of the inquisitorial methods of the police, and many innocent people during the War have had their homes searched without any indication that they were doing any harm. People who were innocently engaged in perfectly legitimate paths had their homes invaded by the power of the law under the scheme of the Defence of the Realm Act. It is now said that that is to be limited in the future to be exercised only by the Secretary of State in the case of England, or in other words, the Home Secretary, and in the case of Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
What does that mean? Does it mean by the personal consent of these two Ministers, or does it mean at the whim and fancy of the satellites of those Departments. Does it mean that personally the Home Secretary in the case of England, or the Secretary for Scotland, has to give his consent with full knowledge of the facts before the police are able to enter upon the premises of the individual and make a search? What are these powers of search to be about? One can conceive that even apart from the question of the country being in a state of war there are occasions on which it might be necessary to have the power of search, but we know what the real power was during the War, and one would like to know what kind of offence, either potential or actual, the Secretary of State in either case would designate as one which necessitated the power of search. Would it confine itself entirely to conspiracy, or would it give the Government the right to invade the home or the office of any individual in this country arbitrarily? During the War we know very well that the Government did this. It was not possible even to make an ordinary speech in the country on almost any subject that had no connection at all with anti-war feelings without that speech being adequately reported and communicated to members of the War Cabinet. I remember myself a member of the War Cabinet bringing a speech of my own which I had delivered in the country to a meeting of discharged soldiers, of a
perfectly harmless character, as to whether they were entitled to the pension rights which the Government have now given them. I presume it was reported by some emissary or spy of the War Cabinet. I do not know whether the reporting of that speech to the War Cabinet shortened the War or not, but that was the kind of proceeding which was conducted during the War.
The Bill simply says powers of search. What kind of powers? Suppose we belong to an organisation which promotes a levy on capital, and the Government thinks that is a criminal offence and that it is not in the interests of the State, are they to have the right to enter our premises if we are an organisation, or into the house of an individual supposing he is particularly interested, on tile signature of the Secretary of state for the Home Office or of the Scottish Secretary? That is what we mean when we say that we are not willing on Second Reading to give carte blanche to the Government and that we want the powers defined before we allow any two men, however respectable, eminent, and trustworthy, in the Government to have the power to give a policeman or any other emissary time power to enter one's house. If you go a little further you will see that power is taken to create special police areas, and the restriction is so far as it relates to existing Orders issued thereunder. What are the existing Orders? I challenge anybody in the House to tell us anything about them. Under that power you might have power given to the Government to interfere with an ordinary industrial strike. That may be right or wrong, but if the Government are going to have that kind of power it ought surely to be explicitly stated what time power is before we grant it. There is a great deal in these Schedules of which one could make almost as much fun as one could make serious remarks. I notice, for instance, that power is taken to retain the prohibition of whistling.

Sir G. HEWART: That is for the benefit of people suffering in hospitals.

Mr. HOGGE: And people who are not in hospitals would strongly object to being kept awake by the whistling of the porters at those clubs that members of the Government frequent and hold discussions at to a late hour. I want lastly to put this point to the Attorney-General: What is to hinder the Government from
withdrawing this Bill, except the fact that it would mean a loss of pride so far as the Parliamentary position is concerned It is agreed that there are certain things that must be carried on, and one of those that was mentioned, of course, was the subject of coal, to which the Leader of the House referred. It is obvious that if there is not sufficient coal to run the industries of the country something must be done to control it. Those powers that are necessary are now very few, and my right lion. Friend could pick them out easily from the fifteen pages of this Schedule. What is not necessary is about ten or twelve pages of this Schedule, and where it is necessary it is not defined, and I would respectfully suggest to the Attorney-General, with regard, say, to the powers of search, that it is easily possible to bring in a definite form of new Bill stating what powers the Government take for that particular purpose. That could be done quite easily before Christmas. There are none of the powers that the Government want which apply to the catastrophe which might happen if Peace came suddenly except those that deal with the carrying on of industry, and I think you want to make that clear. Surely it is a very different position to safeguard the distribution of coal for industrial purposes by the continuation of those Acts from assailing the liberty of the individual. That does not depend upon Peace being signed. While it may be necessary for the purposes of industry, or shipping, or transport to maintain certain powers so that the State shall carry on, there are not and cannot he the same reasons for continuing to infringe upon the personal liberty of the individual. The power of search, for instance, should only be used in the most remote circumstances. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that it is the last thing he would like to do to invade the privacy of the individual, either as an individual or as a person associated with a trade union. What is to hinder the Government considering, at any rate that suggestion? It seems to me that if that were done, some of the edge might be taken off this method of continuing the war emergency laws. Too much is made of the bogey of the ratification of peace. There is a kind of idea that something is going to happen at any moment. It will not find us any less prepared than we are now, with the products we have got for the use of industry
at this precise moment. I respectfully suggest that opposition to this Bill should be continued until the Government are prepared to drop all these attacks on individuals, and confine their attention under the Defence of the Realm Act to those things which are absolutely essential to the continuance of the commercial life of the country.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: I do not think it is fair to ask the House to pass this Bill in its present shape. There is so much in it that no one can follow or correctly understand that the House should not be asked to pass the Bill until some more information is available. I have always taken a great objection personally to legislation by reference, and I remember in a previous House putting down a notice on the Paper to the then Prime Minister, and asking him if something could not be done to make the House understand what they were legislating about. I made the very modest suggestion that there should be placed at the foot of every Bill a quotation from the Section and the Act of Parliament to which reference was made. By those means legal and non-legal Members of the House would be able to understand what it was they were voting about. The then Prime Minister said he did not think that would be possible, because sometimes there were a great number of Sections of Acts of Parliament mentioned in a Bill, and the thing would be impracticable. But I learn t afterwards from a member of the Government the true reason, which was that if the Government disclosed too freely what it was they were referring to, it would be very difficult for them to get the measure through. I think that is the case more intensely at the present time. If the Government were to disclose fully what it is they are asking us to vote upon in connection with this Bill, I think even their own supporters would reject the very Bill itself.
I have been searching for a long time to get light and information on this point, and I do not know whether it is in the Bill or not. It is a regulation under D.O.R.A., I believe. I want to know whether this Bill continues the power to commandeer places, hotels, houses, and so on, under the Defence of the Realm Act? If it is in the power of the Government or a Department to continue to commandeer places, then I want to bring before the House to-night a very grave
matter affecting a place in my Constituency. There was a certain temperance hotel in Southsea, my Constituency, that was commandeered for the purposes of the W.R.N.S. The proprietor was turned out, and the W.R.N.S. were installed. The hotel was kept during the whole of the War, muc4 to the proprietor's inconvenience, loss of profit, and so on. Then, after the W.R.N.S. had been disbanded, and the hotel given up, the owner resumed his possession and tried to get the hotel restored and taken over by another person. The contract was entered into, the hotel was about to be arranged and let, when, at the very last minute, in came another officer under the same Defence of the Realm Act, upset the contract, and contended that the hotel was wanted for the purposes of the Ministry of Pensions. My Constituent came to me in great grief, because he had been deprived of his hotel for a long time, and just when it seemed he was at last going to get it restored to him it was taken a second time under the Defence of the Realm Act. I suggest that is most unfair and most unjust, and if there is to be a continuation of that power, then I think a great deal of discontent will arise. I hope my right hon. Friend will tell me whether I am right in assuming that it is to go on. I have been trying to find out under which Department a remedy in this particular matter is to be sought. I approached the Ministry of Pensions, only to find that the matter would receive attention and be delayed, as it always is in these cases, and a fortnight or three weeks has gone in trying to find if some other place could not be appropriated for this particular purpose. I am assured on the best information possible that there are other places equally suitable for this establishment. Indeed, it is argued that there are some places far more suitable, but because it happened to meet the wishes of a particular section of persons represented by the Ministry of Pensions, this particular hotel is to be commandeered, an injustice is to be continued, and the whole matter is to be proceeded with as the Ministry of Pensions may like. I am still in hopes that I may be able to find out to which Department this really applies. I learnt quite recently, on coming into the House, that I ought to have made my application to the Commissioner of Works. I am only instancing this to show the difficulty one is in. First of all, does it come under this
Bill, to which Department should one apply, and what is the remedy I anticipate my right hon. Friend will say, "You will get your remedy; you will get compensation."Those of us who know what that compensation is, know very well how very unjust it very often is.
Surely the time has arrived when we ought to have a free hand in these matters and assume, without these difficulties, that we can get our properties back. Let the Government, if they want accommodation, get it in the ordinary way, as though this system had been clone away with. I cannot help thinking that if the same kind of difficulty arises in the other conditions to which reference has been made, the time has arived when all these things ought to be done away with. We want to live more in a condition of freedom. We want to feel that we are not hampered, and not left under the impression that when we least expect it we may be brought face to face with some Government establishment or other, so that we cannot move hand or foot. The thing is altogether wrong. We want to get back to the old condition of things. We have actually reached the condition of peace, and are only waiting a technical ending to the War. I want to ask whether really all this is wanted at the present time. Ought there to be any one of these conditions kept now upon the Statute Book? Of whom are we afraid? Arc we afraid of Turkey? I believe that is the only nation with whom we have not made peace. We are certainly not afraid of Germany. Germany is helpless and obsolete, and Austria is the same, and perhaps worse. What then is the use of continuing these objectionable, out-of-the-way and unreasonable conditions for no real purpose at all? I shall certainly oppose this Bill.

Mr. SPOOR: I am extremely sorry that the Attorney-General has not been influenced by the quite evident wish of this House that the Bill, now being considered, should be withdrawn. I know that a short while ago the Government secured a very decisive majority—at all events so it appeared to be—for the continuance of the object of this discussion; but anyone here during the early stages of the Debate must have been impressed by the fact that a very large majority of those present were quite obviously of the opinion that the Bill, as at present introduced, is extremely unsatisfactory. It required all the persuasive power, not to say the threat of disciplinary
action on the part of the Leader of the House, to secure the majority that was secured. I was rather wondering when I saw certain Members pass through the Lobby in support of the Government, Members that used to belong to the Liberal party, whether they realised upon what their political faith was supposed really to rest. I have always understood that Liberalism came into being to emphasise the doctrine of personal liberty. I submit that this Bill from start to finish denies it. We are in an extremely difficult position, because we hardly know what this Bill does contain. We are asked to accept something which—with all respect to the learned Attorney-General—has certainly not been clearly defined We may admit that he has indicated briefly the Clauses proposed to be excluded, but we have no detailed treatment of what the Bill actually does mean. It appears to me that if the House passes the Second Reading of this Bill it will pass it—and I think I can speak on behalf of a large percentage of Members here—in an almost entire ignorance of its real inner meaning.
It is an extremely dangerous step to take, especially at a time like this. I do not want to go detail by detail over the proposals. One or two have been referred to. So far as the Members of the Labour party are concerned they are only interested in certain restrictions retained under the proposed Bill. It seems rather curious that whilst the Attorney-General has been constrained to drop many things which we all agree require to be dropped, he has not been consistent in dropping other things of quite a similar character for whose continuance there is apparently no justification. The power to exempt factories and workshops from the Act of 1901, whilst it may have been necessary while the country was at war—and even that is a debatable question—can surely not be necessary when the War has been over for practically twelve months. There is the other point to which reference has already been made in this discussion. The retention of the power of search is a very much more dangerous thing than many hon. Members appear to realise. Within the last few months a number of houses have been visited by representatives of the police and perfectly innocent people have been subjected to the indignity of having their premises raided, their property disturbed. and their papers investigated. So far as I have been able to ascertain, in all
these cases no proceedings were possible because nothing of a compromising character was discovered. We know that after the War ceased prosecutions under the Act as it has existed up to the present rather changed their form, and men were proceeded against, not because they had done anything against the military interests of the country, but because they had happened to hold opinions that did not agree with the opinions held by the Government. If any unfortunate individual happened to suggest that probably Bolshevism might not be as black as it was painted; if anybody suggested that behind the movement in Russia that has been going on for months it might be there were some intellectual ideas; if somebody happened in their innocence to suggest that there was another side to the terrible story of atrocities that have been again and again served up in hysterical speeches in this House; if anybody happened to hold opinions like that they were subjected at any moment to have their premises visited by the police and to be subjected to the indignities of which I have spoken.
I have always believed—and I imagined men of all parties, whether they called themselves Liberal, Tory, or Labour, believed—that one thing which distinguished Britain amongst the nations of the world was Britain's faith in personal liberty. I do submit that to ask the House to consider a Bill from which apparently has been eliminated many objectionable features, but which still contains many of these, especially under present conditions, when everybody is in a state of obscurity regarding the true inwardness of these proposals—I do submit that this is altogether an unwise, not to say an uncertain thing. There are restrictions which tend to prevent the free development of trade and commerce. We are trying to get things re-established in this country, to get back to the normal. For my part, I cannot imagine, nor do I suppose there is any thinking person here who will imagine, that the provisions of this Bill, if passed into law, and continued as they have been operating for so long, are going to help us to get back to the normal. One thing is certain, that whilst there is a great deal of unrest in this country, and a great deal of justifiable discontent, we are not likely to remove that discontent by a continuance of irritant proposals of this character.
It. is because I feel that, and because I agree with the speakers who have ex-
pressed the opinion that it would have been wiser for the Government to act otherwise; that it would have been treating Members of this House with perhaps a little more courtesy if we had had submitted to us the complete Bill that the Government actually want to pass, instead of this measure about which there is so much confusion in the minds of everybody who has attempted to road it, that I feel that the Attorney-General would be, even at this late hour, well-advised to reconsider his policy. It may be that certain restrictions are necessary, that certain laws will still have to be continued to safeguard important interests. But I do submit that the time is long past when laws which are apparently merely irritating in their character, and seemingly serve no useful purpose, should remain on the Statute Book. I would urge men of all parties to remember that there is a very great danger of the people of this country, and more particularly the Parliament of this country, losing the character that has been its distinctive mark for so long. I would urge the House to oppose this Bill in its present form and to try to do something to restore the authority and prestige of Parliament itself.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Whatever Members may think of the merits of this measure, there must be a sense of humiliation on the part of all sections of the House that the Government consider such a measure necessary now that the War is over. Remembering the conditions of this country—and probably no country in the world equals it for the standard of freedom that has always been enjoyed here—it does seem unfortunate that the Government were not prepared, now that the War is over, to trust the people. I think I am right in saying that the French Government have approached this matter in an entirely different way. 'Unless I am mistaken, I think immediately the Treaty was ratified they swept away all their objectionable legislation that had been secured for the purpose of carrying the War to a successful conclusion. What was good for the French Republic ought not to have been bad for a country that has boasted of its freedom for so many centuries. I, for one, regret that the learned Attorney-General has not seen his way to respond to the many invitations that have been made to him to withdraw this Bill. I listened to his statement ex-
plaining what the Bill contained at the beginning and what he endeavoured to show to us it would contain at the end, but I am not quite sure that the House followed him in all the emendations that he proposed to make. I did hope when the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) raised a point of Order, and a very substantial point, and that when he obtained the decision of Mr. Speaker, I thought that the learned Attorney-General would have seized that opportunity for withdrawing the Bill, and removing the Clause which Mr. Speaker ruled out of order, and bring up a Bill in the course of a few days that would have contained only those parts that the Attorney-General said he desired to detail. If I know anything of the House, I think he would have saved time on the whole. Even in Committee it will be very difficult for Members to follow the details, just as it has been difficult for Members to follow them to-day.
So far as we on these benches are concerned, our position has been quite frankly stated by the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor). We are opposed to all this form of legislation. We were quite prepared to have it during the War, and some of us assisted, and I myself assisted, in getting some of the measures placed on the Statute Book in the early days of the War. We were exceedingly anxious to give to the Government all the power that was necessary in order to carry the War to a successful conclusion. But now that the War is practically over we want to know why it is continued, and I am quite sure the Attorney-General will bear with me when I say that no argument was advanced to-day to show why this objectionable form of legislation by reference, arid legislation by reference in matters so vital to the interests of the public, ought to be continued during the days, and we hope the years, of peace. I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to those Members who raised objections to this Bill when introduced in its original form. I venture to say that by the objections then raised they exercised considerable influence either upon the mind of the Attorney-General or the Government, and secured the very substantial withdrawals from the Bill that were reported by him earlier this afternoon. But it is still objectionable and it is still difficult to understand, and, as I have already said, it is one of the worst forms of legislation
by reference that I have known during the fifteen or sixteen years that I have been associated with this House.
Let me take one or two illustrations to show what I mean. Clause 1 refers us to the Schedules of the Bill, and I think I am right in saying that the Bill as introduced referred to nineteen Emergency Acts and ninety-seven Defence of the Realm Regulations. I am quite prepared to admit that that considerable number has been reduced, but how far I cannot say. Imagine the position of the common people of this country, many of whom in workshop life and in social life and in their forms of propaganda may have to refer to Clause 1, and from Clause 1 to a Schedule containing something like, I think, 106 Acts of Parliament, and different regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act ‡ It seems to me that the Attorney-General would have been serving the interests of all if he had clarified the position as much as possible to Members of the House who are responsible to their constituents, so that since the Government of the country consider so much of this legislation is still necessary that we might be able to know what we were doing in the discussions on the various stages of the Bill. Let me take one of the Regulations. I must say I express my great satisfaction to the Attorney-General for having deleted several of the provisos under Regulation 27. Some of us know something about the dangers to which we have been exposed by any mistaken step or any step that one might have innocently taken and which might have landed us into difficulties under some parts of Regulation 27. But, as I understand the position, there is one part of Regulation 27 which still remains, and I should like the Attorney-General to correct me if I am wrong. I think that Sub-section (d) of Regulation 27 still remains, and Rub-section (d) is very interesting, having regard to the stage in the proceedings of this House that will be reached to-morrow. To-morrow we enter upon what may prove one of the most important arid far-reaching financial discussions that has ever been associated with this House. What does Sub-section (d) say? Sub-section (d) deals with spreading reports or making statements intended or likely to undermine public confidence in connection with any bank or currency notes which are legal tender in the United
Kingdom. The next is the part to which I specially want to call attention, and it reads
or to prejudice the success of any financial measures taken or arrangements made by His Majesty's Government with a view to the prosecution of the War.
I do not know quite what the latter words apply to, but it did occur to me that if the Government promulgated some financial policy to-morrow, and hon. Members of this House might be privileged to criticise such measures in the House, what is to be the position of the critic who goes outside on to public platforms under Sub-section (d)? It appears to me that a little healthy criticism, even of financial proposals made for the purposes of carrying on the successful prosecution of the War, is desirable. I suppose I may be told in legal phraseology that our Order in Council has not yet declared the War at an end, and, to that extent, it may be said that it is being successfully prosecuted. I may be wrong—if so, I hope the Attorney-General will put me right — but are we going to be at liberty if Clause (d) is retained to go into the country and say what we can say on the floor of this House regarding any financial measures which the Government may bring forward to-morrow or the next day, and which they consider necessary for the completion of the work of the War or for the liquidation of the heavy war debt with which the country finds itself burdened at this moment?. Perhaps before the Debate closes we may have a word or explanation on that point. I should also like to ask whether it is really necessary to continue two points under Regulations 51 and 55. My hon. Friend who last spoke called attention to one of them, and asked was it necessary in these days to continue Regulations which might be of essential importance when we are actually engaged in hostilities, but which surely are no longer necessary now we have reached times of peace? My hon. Friend asked is it necessary to retain the power of search even although only exercisable in England and Wales with the consent of the Home Secretary and in Scotland with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland? I ask is it necessary to retain for purposes which might be of essential importance during the period of the War the powers of arrest under Regulation 55? So far as I have been able to
follow the Debate to-day, no case seems to have been made out for the retention of these very oppressive Regulations. The people of this country behaved very well, taking them as a whole, during the whole of the five years of war. This does not apply merely to one class or to one section of the community, but it applies to all classes and to all sections. If anybody had predicted when the War began that it was going to last five years and that the conduct of people of this country would be so exemplary as it has been, they would have been laughed at. Yet we have passed through the most trying period of our history, and can congratulate all classes not only on their splendid patriotism and loyalty, but also on their devotion and their splendid services and sacrifices. In spite of all that they are still to be mistrusted ‡ This objectionable legislation is to be continued for six months longer and in some respects for even a further period. It seems to me the Government would have been well advised if they had taken the people into their confidence—business people—because I may point out many business People are complaining strongly of some of the oppressive regulations that are going to remain if this Bill is passed even as amended in the way described by the learned Attorney—General. Business people, and indeed all sections of the community object to this form of legislation, and I hope that even now that the Government may see their way to abandoning sonic of the very worst of these provisions. I can promise the Attorney-General that we at any rate, whatever be our position in connection with the Second Beading, will do our best in Committee to secure the removal of some of these Clauses from the Bill.

Sir G. HEWART: If I rise to speak again on the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill it is only because some of my right hon. and lion. Friends opposite have put to me questions to which it is only proper an answer should be given. I was asked first whether under the regulations we propose to continue it will still be possible to requisition premises for Government use. I think I have already explained, and if not I will endeavour to make it clear now, that the only power of that kind which is continued by this Bill is the power in 2 (A B) to take possession of premises for the purposes of the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Pensions alone. My hon. Friend opposite
is aware that that regulation in the form in which it stood related to premises required for the Ministry of Pensions or-for the Ministry of Labour. The regulation is continued after the termination of the War solely for the purpose of premises required by the Ministry of Pensions. As far as I am aware that is the only respect in which that particular power is continued. With regard to the observations of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Henderson) I entirely agree with him that there should be continued by this Bill no subtraction from personal liberty which is not absolutely essential. I think my right hon. Friend will do me the fairness of recognising that in the opening statement which I made to-day I was able to point out that in a great many respects we proposed to omit from the Third Schedule Regulations which, however necessary in time of war, might at the date we have now reached in our view safely be put an end to.
May I add this further observation with reference to the suggestion that the Bill should be withdrawn in order that something else might be substituted in its place. I am sure my right hon. Friend will accept my word when I say that the drafting of this Bill was given great consideration and took up much time, and with his Parliamentary experience he will realise the difficulty of the problem which had to be dealt with. On the one hand we had to deal with a large number of Acts of Parliament and parts of Acts of Parliament which it was necessary to continue for some period; and, on the other hand, we had to deal with a large number of the Defence of the Realm Regulations as to which the evidence of various Departments, given before the Committee to which reference has been made, was that they must be continued. My right hon. Friend said that the total of these enactments and Regulations taken together came to something over 100. Assume for the moment that that amount, that variety and that complexity of subject matter had to be dealt with, what was the workmanlike way of doing it? My right hon. Friend seems to say that a member of the public might be embarrassed on taking up this Bill to see exactly what was provided. Would he have been any less embarrassed if he had had to take up 106 pages? The difficulty would have been the same. This is a compendious way of dealing with a large variety of subject matter. It is one thing to say it should not be dealt
with at all. That is a proposition I can understand. It is a different thing to say if it had to be dealt with it should be dealt with in a clearer or simpler way. My submission is that this Bill, whatever may be its faults, and we shall have an opportunity of exploring them hereafter, is a workmanlike attempt to grapple with a very difficult and quite unprecedented subject matter. We have taken the enactments, we, have described them, we have set out the periods for which they are to run at present, and we have set out the extended periods for which it is proposed to continue them. We have taken the Defence of the Realm Regulations which it is proposed to continue, we have described their subject matter, and we have described how far and to what periods it is proposed to continue them. What more could we have done? The only thing which 'has been suggested we could alternatively have done is to take every one of these Acts of Parliament or Sections, or Regulations and reprint them within the limits of the Bill. That would have been a far less concise and I should have thought by no means a more intelligible compilation.
I pass from form. If difficulties of form really exist we shall have opportunities of altering them. Upon the point of substance, my right hon. Friend upon two grounds suggested that even at this late stage this Bill should be withdrawn. The first was that Mr. Speaker this afternoon had given a ruling that a particular part of a particular Sub-section of a particular Clause was not within the scope of the Bill. Does my right hon. Friend really appreciate the dimensions of that ruling? It related to that one of the Defence of the Realm Regulations which has to do with the possible acquisition of premises after the termination of the War for the purposes of the Minister of Pensions, and it provides that in such a case the person whose premises were taken should not go to the Courts for his remedy, but should go, as so many of his fellow taxpayer have gone before him, to the Defence the Realm Losses Commission. Mr. Sp deer thought that matter was beyond the scope of the Bill. I loyally bow to the decision, but do not let us exaggerate the effect of it. What was the second point on which it was suggested that at this late hour the Bill should be withdrawn? It was because of the enormous number of different things dealt with in it; but so far as they are necessary they will either have to be dealt
with in the new Bill, which will take the place of the Bill which is withdrawn, or they will have to be dealt with each in a separate Bill. Then my right hon. Friend referred me to Regulation 27 (d), and with regard to that 1 cannot help thinking that he is under some slight misapprehension. He referred to what may take place tomorrow or the day after to-morrow. Regulation 27, nut only as regards paragraph (d) but as regards the totality of the Regulation, is at present in full force, and will so continue until the termination of the War is reached. What is proposed is to continue Regulation 27 not necessarily for the period which was named, but for not longer than that period so far as relates to reports and statements in paragraph (d). So far as this Bill is concerned, we have nothing to do with 27 (d) until after the termination of the War, and then the effect of the Bill, so far as it relates to 27 (b), will make it, until the Regulation is revoked—and it may be revoked any day—an offence to
Spread reports or make statements intended or likely to undermine public confidence in any bank or currency notes which are legal tender in the United Kingdom or any part thereof, or to prejudice the success of any financial measures taken or arrangements made by His Majesty's Government with a view to the prosecution of the War.
Once you recollect that the operation of the continued Regulation will not begin until after the termination of the War, it is quite obvious that comments of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman referred to could not be said by any prosecuting counsel, and would not be held by any tribunal, to be statements prejudicing the success of financial measures taken or arrangements made with a view to the prosecution of the War. I think my right hon. Friend may dismiss that suspicion entirely from his mind.

Mr. HENDERSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman's explanation parry the criticism which was made at the time, say, a Loan was being raised for the payment of the War, or is the liberty of the subject to be restricted in criticism of any Loans which may be arranged after the passing of the Act?

Sir G. HEWART: There was once a very learned lawyer who wrote a book showing all the things which a man might do and nevertheless keep himself outside the limits of the criminal law. It was a very interesting book, but when he had written it he burned it because he came to
the conclusion that it would be a very mischievous thing to publish. 1 really cannot advise how far a man may go after the War in criticising the financial arrangements which are made.

Mr. T. WILSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the period after the War commences?

Sir G. HEWART: With great pleasure. I think that is the fourth time the point has been raised during the Debate. That point of time is defined by a little Act of Parliament called the Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act. It is reached when an Order in Council is published terminating the War.

Mr. WILSON: There may be half-a-dozen different periods.

Sir G. HEWART: No; there can only be one. That Order in Council is to be published as soon as may be after the exchange or deposit of the ratification of the Treaty or Treaties of Peace. It may be after one, it may be after the last, but that Order in Council will be made once and once for all. But, apart from dialectical difficulties which my right hon. Friend may take a certain pleasure in raising, it is quite clear that in order to come within the prohibition a person has to spread a report or make a statement which is intended or likely to prejudice, and so on. I cannot imagine that there will be a large field for the operations of the second part of paragraph (d). I suspect that the main purpose, at any rate, for which it is desired to preserve any part of paragraph (d) is because of the reports or statements intended or likely to undermine public confidence in any bank or currency notes which are legal tender in the United Kingdom. At the moment I find a difficulty in imagining the kind of statement to which they would refer, but 1 shall be very glad to consider that matter further in Committee.
With regard to 51 and 55, one is the power of search and the other is the power of arrest. It is fair to remember the limitations within which those Regulations are proposed to be continued. With regard to 51 it is a power to be exercisable in England and Wales only with the consent of a Secretary of State, and in Scotland only with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland. With regard to the power of arrest, the extended power of arrest given by
Regulation 55 is only so far as relates to offences under Regulations continued by this Act.
My right hon. Friend spoke, and others have spoken, as if the elect 0I carrying this Bill would be to continue all these Regulations for the maximum period which is suggested. That is not the case. It is expressly provided by Clause 3, Subsection (1) of the Bill that
It shall be lawful for His Majesty in Council to revoke in whole or in part any of the Regulations so continued as soon as it appears to him that consistently with the national interest any such Regulation can be so revoked.
We are dealing not with a fixed and certain period in which it is proposed to continue the Regulations but only with the maximum period, with power to revoke at any time during that period. I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to deal with the various points which have been mentioned. May 1 reiterate that so far as the enactments are concerned, the enactments contained in Schedule 1 are mainly enactments which give the benefit to the subject. So far as the Regulations are concerned we propose to omit a great many of those to which exception might most obviously be taken. When we come, as I hope we very soon shall come, to the Committee stage I will cause a printed statement to be put in the hands of all Members showing exactly what it is proposed to do. We are not proposing to add anything at all to the Schedule. There shall be in the hands of Members a printed statement showing exactly what is proposed to be done.

Mr. THOMAS: All Members, as distinct from the members of the Committee?

Sir G. HEWART: I presume that the Paper will be circulated in the ordinary way to every Member of the House, and when that is done, I think with a little goodwill and a little patience and carp on the one side and the other we shall be able to reduce this measure to the smallest dimensions which are compatible with the public interest and public safety.

Mr. HENDERSON: I thank the Attorney-General for his promise to lay a White Paper. May I make one further request, and that is that the Amendments which the Government propose to make to this Bill shall be put down forthwith, or at any rate five or six days before we enter upon the Committee stage? It is
important that we should have the Amendments in our possession as early as possible in order that we may trace the different references, and also consult those we represent.

Sir G. HEWART: That shall certainly be done. I did not use the word White Paper, because I am not sure that that will be the way to present it; but I am prepared, whatever form the document may take, to promise that information shall be in the hands of Members at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. HENDERSON: Will the Attorney-General consider the advisability of laying it in the form of a White Paper which would set out clearly the difference between the Bill as it is now and the Bill as it is intended to be? I think I am right in saying that that has been done on former occasions to the advantage of hon. Members.

Sir G. HEWART: I will certainly consider that, and if it is found practicable I will do it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have listened with great interest and personal pleasure to the speech of the Attorney-General in explanation of the Bill and also his speech answering the points that have been raised. Speaking as one who is very troubled in his mind about this Bill I welcome the promise to let us have the information in the form of a child's guide, which will tell us what is to be left out and what is to be left in. I wish the Attorney-General would agree that further discussion on the Bill should be adjourned until we could have the White Paper. I do not know how long it would take to prepare it, but there cannot be very great urgency for this Bill. As the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) reminded the House, an attempt was made to smuggle this through as a matter of no great importance last August, and because the hon. Baronet resisted the Bill on the Bank Holiday it was not proceeded with. It was not brought forward on the first day when we resumed business, but it is brought on in the second week. Therefore, there cannot be any very great urgency. Those of us who have been approached again and again by our constituents know how vexatious and harassing the Regulations are, and it would be a relief and better for all concerned if we knew which of
these Regulations were to be removed. Therefore, it would be better if this White Paper were circulated first, and if the Second Reading were not taken to-night until we have had an opportunity of seeing where we are. This is a leap in the dark. I have listened carefully to all that has been said, but I do not know really what we arc voting for. Let me give an instance of the confusion in which we find ourselves. Take Regulation 2 (o)—The keeping of pigs. This is not one of the Regulations which the Attorney-General said would be abolished. Is it necessary to keep on this Regulation under which people have to apply for permission to keep pigs? The Lord Privy Seal told us in impassioned accents that unless this Bill were passed and if peace was not ratified, and a war was suddenly started, it would be necessary to carry on these precious Regulations, and practically everything would be in chaos, the world would fall to pieces and there would be riots and revolution. Surely it is an anticlimax to suggest these things if we do not continue Regulation 2 (o), relating to the compulsory keeping of pigs. Is this Regulation to be carried on for another twelve months, and is it necessary for the defence of the realm? That is one example I have picked out at random. There is also the question of the arrest of persons without warrant and keeping them in gaol without trial. Apparently anyone can now be arrested without warrant and put in gaol without trial, and all the age-long safeguards of our liberty are to be abated by the mere signature of a document by a Secretary of State.

Sir G. HEWART: I never said anything remotely resembling that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. It was very difficult to tell what he did say. I understood him to say—

Sir G. HEWART: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to make a false point. If he will be good enough to look at Regulation 51, which is referred to on page 18 of the Bill, he will see that the power of search is to be exercised in England and Wales only with the consent of the Secretary of State, and in Scotland only with tile consent of the Secretary for Scotland. That is with reference to the power of search. The extended power of arrest given by the Defence of the
Realm Regulations is under No. 55. The limitation there is not the consent of a Secretary of State, but that the offence, in respect of which the arrest is being made, is an offence under one of these continued Regulations.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is competent for the Secretary of state to issue a general consent to the police to search indiscriminately, without the necessity of having a search warrant from a magistrate? Is that the power intended to be continued under this Regulation?

Sir G. HEWART: I do not think it is, but in order that there may be no doubt about the matter, I will refer to the very words of the Regulation, which is Regulation 51. What it provides is this:
The competent naval or military authority, or any person duly authorised by him or any police constable may, if he has reason to suspect that any house, building, land, vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other premises or anything therein are being or have been constructed, used or kept for any purpose or in any way prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the realm, or that an offence against these Regulations is being or has been committed thereon or therein, enter, if need be by force, the house, building, land, vehicle, vessel, aircraft or premises at any time.

Mr. THOMAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that that has been exercised in the case of trade union secretaries without any proof?

Sir G. HEWART: I was not aware of that, but however that may be, that is an exercise of the existing Regulation.

Mr. THOMAS: Which it is proposed to continue?

Sir G. HEWART: Which it is proposed to continue, subject to the new Regulation which this Bill proposes to insert.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Why should not the competent military authority go in the ordinary course to the bench of magistrates for a search warrant? That is the principal protection we have against illegal search to-day.

Sir G. HEWART: That is a different question from the question asked me just now, which was as to whether the warrant for search would be a general one. I should think it would be particular and not general. Win, regard to the question now put to me, that, of course, involves
the whole question whether or not that particular Regulation should be continued. That is a matter eminently worthy to be discussed in Committee, but the decision on that point is not in the smallest degree prejudiced by reading this Bill a second time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thank the Attorney-General for having consented to explain the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves regarding search and arrest, which apparently may happen to anyone at any time in this country. I was making the point that simply on the signature of a Secretary of State anyone of His Majesty's lieges can be arrested. Now I am told that it is not even necessary to have the signature of the Secretary of State. The power of arresting and keeping in gaol without trial remains. There may be other safeguards of which I do not know. This is a matter which will not he welcome to the country as a whole. With regard to search, if there is anything the English people pride themselves on it is the sanctity of their own homes. The Regulation that a. man's home can be ransacked and searched for proofs against him is totally unnecessary. Although during the War we have put up with a good many things, this is asking too much from a long-suffering people who have played the game. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) did not quite understand the matter of search. The Attorney-General had to explain it to him. That is the very thing under discussion now, and I am sure my right hon. Friend is taking steps in his trade union to look into the matter of search. He has had the matter brought before him. It will disgust everyone that you should search a man's premises looking for proof that there is an anarchist plot. I maintain that the Second Reading should not be taken until the White Paper is given to us and we know exactly where we are. May I appeal to hon. Members who do not usually agree with me? The present Government may not last for ever or for many weeks longer. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh‡"] It may not, and I hope for the sake of Europe that it will not. We may have a Government of a very different complexion. It may possibly be a Labour Government—I say this without any prejudice—and they may bring in necessary legislation of a most drastic nature in order to meet an emergency. because if we have some sort of financial breakdown
in the next few months very drastic steps will be required, and this Defence of the Realm Act, or such part of it as the Committee in their wisdom retain, will be extraordinarily useful in expropriating property, stocks and shares and making investigations and inventories as to which property is going to be levied upon. It is even possible that hon. Members who so blindly vote for this measure may become very unpopular in the country for doing so and may regret their haste. They may find themselves hoist by their own petard. I put that as a pleasing suggestion of what may happen.

Mr. HENDERSON: Do you mean the "Wee Frees."

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Being an official member of the party in this case, I can inform my right hon. Friend that the official Liberal party are prepared to take over the government and guidance of the country at any moment. I do not think they could do worse than the present Government. There is also the question of the trade restrictions. Is it suggested that all these Orders under this Bill are necessary for the restraint of trade, because they amount to that'? The commercial classes of the country—I represent part of a large commercial city—are unanimous in saying that they are not required, and they ought to know. I suppose they are as patriotic as His Majesty's Ministers, and they say that a great many of these Regulations are not required. I do not know in the very least which of them it is proposed to keep or which of them it is proposed to drop. I have tried to look through them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh‡"] Has any hon. Member, outside his own trade or profession, any knowledge of what the different Regulations are or affect? I do not think so. Possibly the Attorney-General knows, but I do not think any other hon. Member of the House does. We do not know the extent of the Regulations. We are told this Bill will go to a Grand Committee and be thrashed out there. The Grand Committee system, in the opinion of a large majority of the Members of this House, is not satisfactory. I do not know whether I shall be a member of the Committee. I do not know who will be a member of it. It is bound to have a preponderance of the party which has just voted for this,
and I am not prepared to trust the Committee. We have seen that again and again already in connection with other Bills, and especially the Aliens Bill. Not only do hon. Members of this House not approve of the Grand Committee system, but, obviously, the Government themselves do not approve of it, because they often try to reverse the findings of the Committees upstairs. This is the most unpopular measure in the country. I suppose there is not a single Member who at the last General Election did not pledge himself to do all in his power to get rid of the Defence of the Realm Act, and people now arc more angry about the Defence of the Realm Act than ever, because they fondly hoped, if they returned a certain party to power, that the Defence of the Realm Act would be done away with, and I am sorry to say that they have been disappointed. We do not know for what we are voting, and I do make a last appeal to my right hon. Friend to hold his hand until this White Pa-per, this child's guide, which we have been promised and which I hope will make these entangled things clear, is issued. Otherwise, I am very sorry that I shall again have to vote against the Government.

Dr. MURRAY: I just want to make one or two general observations. It is no disgrace to confess ignorance of this Bill. Almost every Member on both sides of the House who has spoken has confessed his ignorance. I notice also that before dinner hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were very brave in their opposition to this Bill, but when the Leader of the House conjured up before them the ghost of a General Election, and when the Prime Minister came down and overawed them, their attitude became very different. We have got accustomed to their brave words. They are beginning to pall upon the House. The empty benches just now are an eloquent testimony to the extent of the courage of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Leader of the House attributed this opposition to the clatter of the papers outside. The clatter of the papers outside is a very useful sort of thing when it is pursuing a vendetta against Liberal statesmen, but when it makes a little lively criticism on the present Government it is a very inconvenient and not a very nice thing for Members of this House to follow. It is not the clatter of the papers outside. There is no doubt that the general sense of the House,
despite the silence on the other side at the present moment, is against this Bill. What a farce Parliamentary government has come to when the right hon. Gentleman will get the Second Reading of his Bill to-night in face of the fact that nine-tenths of the House are against it‡ That is what Parliamentary government has come to under tins Coalition. Here we have a Liberal Minister, a year after the War, proposing these shackles and chains for the public of this country. As a matter of fact, it is simply the continuance of the war mind.
This Government cannot get out of the war atmosphere in any department of their activities. The same thing is causing a great deal of the extravagance in almost every Department. There was a clatter in the papers outside, and the head of every Department got busy dismissing flappers and young people of that sort, forgetting that extravagance depends upon policy. This is the continuance of the war mind in the direction of suppressing the personal liberty of the subject. It the policy of Ca' canny as applied to the work of the Government, and it is much more mischievous in its effect in every Department of Government than in our industrial life. Almost every point that has been raised here to-night has had to be referred to the Attorney-General to give, as my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has expressed it, a child's guide, simply because this is legislation by reference. I have no doubt that the Minister of Labour in his youth paid some attention to what we in Scotland call "gowk." You send some simpleton with a note—" Do not laugh and do not smile, but send a fool another mile." You cannot find out from this Bill what it means. You have to go to some other Bill or some other Regulation, and you come back as wise as you went. It is about time the Government got out of this war atmosphere. It is about a year since the cessation of hostilities, and when the Government. by the continuance of these various Regulations, remind the people that they are still under war conditions it is bound to have a disturbing effect upon many activities of our national life. Therefore, I hope that there will be a Division upon this Bill to-night. in which case I shall have much pleasure in going into the Lobby against it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In approaching a Bill like this we have to remember, first
of all, what human nature is. Every single Government Department that has been created during the War has an instinctive desire to keep itself going. Everybody who has a Government job, or any other sort of job, wants to keep. his job, especially under present circumstances. Therefore, every Government Department will make out the very strongest possible case for the perpetual continuance of that particular Department. That was proved in the last Parliament, when there was a Committee set up to consider when the end of the War' should be. Before that Committee all these various Government Departments gave evidence, and, while they all deprecated the perpetual existence of the other Departments, they all made out a perfectly watertight case for the perpetual continuance of their own Department. That is only human nature, and I think we ought to look at this hill in that light. Every single Government Department will make out a very strong case for that particular enactment or regulation is the backbone of that Department. Therefore, you have this special regulation about tae keeping of pigs preserved. There must be some Department which requires that regulation in order to keep their own jobs.
Every Member of this House will acquit me of any desire to preserve Luis abnormal state of interference with the life of the community. I believe that the whole of Defence of the Realm Act might be swept away without involving any of the tragedies that have been pictured by the Leader of time House to-day. They are bogies created partly by the Departments and partly by the Leader of the House himself in the desire to do something which is not strictly connected with the War itself.
The provisions of the Bill to which I wish to draw attention as indicating desire on the part of the Government not to end up-the War but to preserve control over the country in an extra legal manner are these. There are in the Bill as before us powers to continue penalties for the following things—for spreading reports considered prejudicial to recruiting, to Government loans, or likely to cause active disaffection. There is an article by myself in the "Westminster Gazette'' today on the extreme propriety of a compulsory funding loan. Now compulsory funding of Treasury Bills might very likely be
held by Government Departments to be discouraging people from putting their money into Treasury Bills. It is impossible that I should suffer under the Defence of the Realm Act because Acts of Parliament such as this do not apply to the governing classes. But if somebody else had written this article he might find himself in the difficult position of having to defend himself against the Attorney-General and the Public Prosecutor. Then if I went about saying that recruiting for war in Russia is recruiting English people to commit murder which, I thoroughly believe, I should be liable to penalty under the extension of the Defence of the Realm Act as saying something which is likely to cause disaffection. I hope that I never made a speech which is not likely to cause disaffection. The bulk of the speeches which I hear at the meetings which I attend are also in the same direction. Nobody will be prosecuted under it, but it is a great mistake to make laws which are not put into operation, because it brings contempt on all laws, even those laws which ought to be put into operation. If you have laws which make what you or everybody else on these benches does constantly week after week illegal you bring the law into contempt with the vast body of the public.
Then you continue powers to impose restrictions on persons suspected of hostile associations. I do not believe there is anybody, certainly not on these benches, who does not believe, nine months after the termination of hostilities, that every interned alien ought to be released, but there is no adequate reason for keeping these people interned, and still less for interning them at the charge on the community as a whole. To continue to intern these people without warrant and without trial is to abrogate the Habeas Corpus Art, which was passed under Charles II. We are going back on what our ancestors did 250 years ago. That is a pretty strong step to ask this country to take nearly a year after hostilities have closed. We are continuing power to prohibit public meetings and processions and to remove persons considered by the authorities as undesirable from areas where there are troops. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear ‡ "] If you still consider that desirable nine months after the close of hostilities, I do rot. We still continue power to billet soldiers, sailors, and airmen on civilians, and
we continue restrictions on imports, trading with foreign enemies, on new capital, and the issue of passports. Anybody who goes abroad knows what trouble there is with passports now. You continue powers relating to railway traffic and all businesses, and you may prevent anybody starting a new fried-fish shop. It is so essential to the salvation of our country that nobody should enter into the fried-fish shop business.
These powers point to the desire of the Government not to end the War, not to close up the Departments which have been created during the War, but the desire on the part of the Government to fight against strikes and labour disturbances arid labour agitations. They are all relics of our war legislation for preventing strikes, and for carrying on somehow or other during those trying years. I protest that these Regulations are really the child of the fears of timorous persons as to Bolshevik revolution in this country—people who spend sleepless nights thinking of the Bolshevik revolution. These Regulations inspired by fear are just the very things to create discontent and sedition in the country. It is the existence of Regulations such as these that produce the amount of froth that we have on the soap boxes at street corners at the present time. If they wanted to encourage sedition on the streets they would continue the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act. People to-day know perfectly well what the Defence of the Realm Act is being continued for. They know quite well what its mechanism has been used for during the War—for the control of Labour—and that it is being continued in order to continue the control of Labour. You had much better control Labour by agreement and common sense. You had much better deal with it frankly and openly on the basis of the old laws of England. We are a conservative people. It may seem strange, but we are, and we stick to the old laws rather than accept the new enactments of an Executive, and subject the citizens of the country to the irresponsible restrictions of the Executive instead of the law of the country. There is resentment of anything which puts power into the hands of the police or the Home Secretary. It exists everywhere. No one who goes about the country can possibly deny that it exists.
I do protest that whereas it may be necessary to close down departments, and therefore continue some of the enactments
which are embodied in this Bill, it is not necessary to continue all these Regulations which are aimed at controlling Labour. It is not necessary, because there is no danger of revolution in this country, and it is undesirable because it creates the very spirit of unrest which it is desired to control. The reason why the people of this country are not revolutionary is that because in the past they have been allowed to hear any sort of nonsense talked. They have been allowed to hear revolutionary doctrines, wrong doctrines, heretical doctrines just as much as true doctrines. Consequently, the ordinary man in the street in this country is accustomed to using his own judgment as to whether what he hears is true or false, sound or unsound; but now, because this new Coalition Government are afraid of the people, they are depriving them of the opportunity of hearing both sides, and therefore narrowing down and stunting their natural education in political matters. If you want to have an educated electorate, which must be the object of everybody in this House, surely you must allow them to hear what is wrong in order that they themselves may learn to choose what is right. Unless you give the opportunity to a man of going wrong he will never go right of his own accord.
It is because these Regulations fiy in the face of old traditions of liberty of speech and of the Press that I protest againt their continuance. There is no need for them, because there is no danger to the State of any sort of revolution. The only danger is when you bottle people up, and push them underground, and make these Regulations which can be interpreted by the man in the street in a hundred more ways than they have ever been interpreted by a Home Secretary in this country. Of course all these things will be reported at public meetings. A man will get up at a street corner and explain that in saying what he does say he is breaking Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act. He will not be arrested; he prides himself on breaking these laws, and he is making all law more difficult to enforce. For all these reasons I beg the Government to drop this Bill, and when they deal with the necessary enactments, which must be extended for a year, to deal with them by a special continuance of each and not by an omnibus Bill. We shall then get a rational solution instead of a solution
which will arouse opposition throughout the country, and bring not this Government but all Governments into discredit.
I believe that at election meetings and other meetings I have been asked whether I was in favour of the discontinuance of the Defence of the Realm Act more often than I have been asked any other question, or as frequently as I have been asked whether I was in favour of direct action. At every meeting I said I was in favour of the earliest and the immediate. destruction of the Defence of the Realm Act. I believe that most Members of this House have given the same answer to that question. We talk a lot about pledges. There is a definite pledge. Are we going to scrap that? It is a definite pledge to vote for the destruction of the Defence of the Realm Act. I am in favour of keeping my pledge, and I hope that other Members will also keep their pledge, not because it is a mere pledge, but because it is to the honour of England that we should put an end at the earliest possible moment to these very un-English Regulations.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. C. WHITE: Like other Members of this House I was often asked during my candidature whether I was in favour of discontinuing the Defence of the Realm Act as soon as possible. I think the time has come when it is possible to discontinue altogether the Regulations under this Act. I am, perhaps, a rather unsophisticated Member of this House, but I reckon to have a little common sense. For the life of me I cannot understand what provisions in this Bill are put before us to-day. The Attorney-General has said that there are to be many Amendments. I should have preferred much, before giving my vote, to see what those Amendments were. It has been said that many Members will not be on the Committee which considers this Bill. I know it will be open to them, when the Bill comes down on Report to move some Amendments. But what will happen? It will then be made a party measure, and even if the Government are defeated it will result only in a few of the malcontents being invited to Downing Street again, the whitewash brush will be used, and they will come to heel. I have had some experience of several Government Departments, not high salaried appointments at all. I happened to be Substitution Officer for Derbyshire. May I say. without egotism, that owing to the fact that I did not hesitate to break regulations I
substituted more men than any other Substitution Officer in the country. When National Service became law I happened to call a meeting at my own expense to explain it. I was not satisfied with the methods adopted by the Ministry of Labour. What happened? Under the Defence of the Realm Act, I suppose, I had a telegram from London ordering me to cancel my meeting as I was going to criticise some other Government Departmerit. I said, "You can have my resignation but I will not cancel the meeting unless law or force prevents me from holding it." They sent down from London to report even a man like myself, holding a. small position like that. A shorthand note was taken of everything I said, and although I was not prosecuted I had to go before my chief, who, as is usual with heads of Departments, knew little or nothing about the job he had to do. He advised me that if ever I intended to make a speech again, even if it was an after-dinner speech, I should have to submit it to the head of my Department. I said that perhaps that would be difficult; it would depend upon what one had for dinner. No action was taken on that. Am I still to be in danger if I say something outside this House that is detrimental, say, to recruiting or demobilisation? I notice in Regulation 42 for the words "successful prosecution of the War" there are the words "in connection with the demobilisation of the forces." I am free from arrest in this House I understand, but I am here to say this—that there is no more scandalous thing than the miserable methods adopted in the demobilisation of the forces of this country., During the past few months you have had men demobilised who have never seen a shot fired, while out in Mesopotamia and in India, and in some parts of Russia, there are men who have been there practically from the beginning of the War—men forty years of age, with wives and children. Here we have to-day the power vested in officers who want to keep their position to say which of their men are indispensable. Let me illustrate what I mean. It was said in this House by the Secretary for War that the men coming from Mesopotamia had all volunteered to remain in India till the trouble was over.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): I think the hon. Member is mistaken on one point. It has been under
taken that both 42 (c) and 42 are to be withdrawn. I am not sure that I caught his observations, but I thought lie referred to a continuance of these.

Mr. WHITE: They are in the Bill.

Sir E. POLLOCK: They are two which it has been undertaken are to be withdrawn.

Mr. HOGGE: 42 (A) is not withdrawn; 42 (C) is.

Sir E. POLLOCK: And 42 I understand.

Mr. HOGG E: There is no 42.

Mr. WHITE: On page 19 are the words I have read as it for the words "successful prosecution of tile War" there were submitted the words "in connection with the demobilisation of the forces.'' If I made the observations outside this House that I have made inside that would be doing something detrimental to the demobilisation of the forces, and, in my opinion, I should be in danger of prosecution. What happened in India? A soldier goes to his club and says, "I have not volunteered, and the first thing I know about it is that I see reported in this newspaper that the Secretary for War said we had all volunteered." The colonel says, "And you will be the last man to be demobilised in this camp for asking that simple question." That is only an instance of what will go on under Bills like this. Are we to be kept in the dark as to when there is likely to be a ratification of peace? We had a lot of discussion as to when the termination of the War was to be, but now we appear to have the same delays as to when the ratification of peace is to come about. Why is the extension of this Act necessary when, as was said by the Prime Minister and reported in a paper which I believe was purchased so that he might have a good Press, "I am sure we have no enemy at the present moment in any part of the world."
If we have no enemy, why keep continuing these Defence of the Realm Regulations? There is no country in Europe in a position to go to war with the single exception of ourselves, and who are we going to fight? Public opinion in this country would prevent us again being plunged into war. We have had enough of Orders in Council issued by Government Departments under the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act, and of restrictions on imports and ex-
ports which, I suppose, come under the same Act. I have given an illustration of what happened in Hull. There last March a man came to me and said, "I have an order from Sweden for 250,000 sacks, and I have been trying to get a licence for months. To-day I have received a telegram to say that the order has been given to Germany because we cannot undertake it soon enough." I think it is time we should have done with all these restrictions and of Government Departments, and it is time we reverted to Parliamentary control.

Major ENTWISTLE: I am against the continuance of the various restrictions and- controls which this Bill desires to continue, and I do not think I am alone in that respect. Certainly when I have spoken at any meetings and answered questions I have answered them most unequivocably on this point. I think most hon. Members have done the same. When 1 saw this Bill down for the Second Reading I knew the Government would have a difficult time again over this measure, because in the newspapers which represent the parties which form the Coalition the campaign and outcries against these controls and restrictions is just as vigorous in those papers as it is in those Which are more ostensibly against the Government. If that is so, if it is a fact that the Members of this House are really against, a continuance of those restrictions, how is it that the Government can come down here and bring in a Bill which has already been shown, and which I shall try to show, is very premature? Why have they come here with a Bill including all sort of conditions which nobody understands, and which it is not proposed now shall be retained in the Bill before it has passed its final stages?
How can they ask for a Second Reading blindly with any hopes of obtaining it? The only answer is that pressure has been exercised. We have had a continuance of the various machinations which go on behind the scenes for the purpose of the kind of Parliamentary government which we have at the present time. I read with amazement in the newspapers the announcement that after the last Government defeat the Government had called certain prominent Members into conference. This information was published in the Government organs as well as other
newspapers, and it was stated that everything was now all right. Those particular men who have been selected arbitrarily are satisfied. It was said there is no question at issue now, and the whole thing will go through. I thought to what a pitch Parliamentary government had come in this country. Now we have another instance where we have heard cheers have been given whenever objections have been raised to these controls and restrictions, and we find this House agreeing to them. Why? I expect there have been threats of resignation, and the whole thing has to be passed. How is it this Bill has to be passed in its present form? When suggestions are made that we should have the Bill specified and made complete they are not carried out, and it is said it can be left to the Committee. That concession has merely been granted because of the opposition raised to this Bill, and the opposition has been quietened by influences which are not on the surface. If that opposition had not been made this Bill would have gone through in its present state. Now it is admitted that quite a considerable portion of the Bill can be dropped. If so, why were those things put in? If the Government, is sincere in saying this, why were such things included? The very fact that these omissions are to be made is a confession that they are not necessary, and what guarantee have we that those to e left in are required?
The main objection I have to the Second Reading going through is that this is another example, of which the Military Service Bill was the first, of Bills being brought in long before the time they are necessary, and that very fact is the cause of the gravest suspicion, and it demands that every man who is honest on this question should give his vote against it. [Laughter.] I see some hon. Members opposite are amused at my reference to the Military Service Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear ‡ ''j Let me explain, because the same thing applies to this Bill. The Military Service Act, which was in existence before the new Act, has the same provision about the termination of the War. We have had a very clear definition given by the Attorney-General as to what is the termination of the War, and we are told it is an Order in Council which is to be passed after the ratification of a,
certain number of them. The point is that it is an Order in Council which has to be made by the Government itself, and this after ratification. The Leader of the House said to-day that ratification will probably not take place till the second or third month in next year Anyone knew at the time when the Military Service Bill was brought in that ratification could not possibly take place until late this autumn, and now we know it cannot take place till next year; but even then the Order in Council has to be passed. Surely the right, the honest course in dealing with a measure of this kind, where it is admitted that these restrictions are evil things, when nothing must be retained except what is vitally necessary, surely the proper and honourable course is to wait till nearer the time when this Bill is necessary. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University clearly showed that there is no urgency for this Bill at all, that before this Order in Council is passed any urgent legislation which is necessary for the continuance of any control could be passed rapidly, as Bills have been passed rapidly in this House before now, and there could be no objection. I say, therefore, that this premature bringing in of legislation, the attempt first of all to bring it in secretly, and now the insistence upon it against its necessity, is a cause for the gravest suspicion, and when we have, combined with this, the fact that hon. Members who have openly stated their objection to these proposals are now, through various subterranean measures, quietened, it needs a protest and a strong vote against it

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Has not the hon. and gallant Member already intervened in the Debate?

Colonel WILLIAMS: Merely to ask a question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. and gallant Member had already taken part in the Debate.

Colonel WILLIAMS: I hardly think I exhausted my right to speak. I did not intend to do so, and I have only a few words to say now.

Mr. SPEAKER: I was not here. I accept the hon. and gallant Member's statement.

Colonel WILLIAMS: I merely put a question to the Attorney-General, Sir. I believe that in the North country, if there is one thing that Labour and Capital are agreed upon, it is that D.O.R.A. should go at once. I believe really that the workmen and the employers are agreed upon that. I believe also that the Regulation which compels a workman to produce a leaving certificate in order to leave his employment created more industrial unrest in our district than anything else, and I am perfectly convinced of this: that the business community are intensely annoyed at the way in which they have been handled under the Defence of the Realm Act; and unless they have some prospect of relief I believe the Government would have been met not only with passive resistance from the business community but with active resistance to any further Regulations. I do not believe the commercial community, like the workmen, are going to stand an indefinite Defence of the Realm Act, and the point I really wanted to raise was this. Under what Regulation is the Board of Trade prohibiting the export of metals from the North-East Coast? We have never yet been able to find out. It may come under the Regulation which gives the Government power to regulate articles of commerce other than food, but that Regulation is very seriously affecting our export trade in the North of England, and even during the railway strike, when we could have carried on to a certain extent by means of shipments abroad, the Board of Trade was refusing licences for the export of metals to Continental countries, especially Belgium and the North of France. The only other point I want to make is this. I do not believe that this House ought to part to the Executive with these extensive powers to interfere with the liberty of the subject for so long as is proposed. Three months from the termination of the War is ample. I hope the House will vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, and I believe fall in with the view of the general public, and protect the interest of the subject.
Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 63.

Division No. 117.]
AYES
[10.21 p.m.


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Greig, Colonel James William
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gretion, Colonel John
Perkins, Walter Frank


Archdale, Edward M.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peering, William George


Armitage, Robert
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic, Loughbord)
Pickering, Col. Emil W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. F. W.
Gwynne, R. S.
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Atkey, A. R.
Hacking, Captain D. H.
Preston, W. R.


Baird, John Lawrence
Hailwood, A.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Balowin, Stanley
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.(Altrincham)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hanna, G. B.
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hanson, Sir Charles
Purchase, H. G.


Barnston, Major H.
Harmsworth, Cecil R. (Luton, Beds.)
Rae, H. Norman


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hennessy, Major G.
Hepburn, Sir William


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Ramsden, G. T.


Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Betterton, H. B.
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.


Blades, Sir George R
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Reld, D. D.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.
Remer, J. B.


Blane, T. A.
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Renwick, G.


Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. F.
Hinds, John
Richardson, Sir Albion (Peekham)


Borwick, Major G. o.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Brassey, H. L. C.
Hood, Joseph
Rodger, A. K.


Breese, Major C. E.
Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Rowlands, James


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Hope, John Deans (Berwick)
Reyds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Howard, Major S. G.
Scott, A. M. (Glos., Bridgeton)


Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Seeger, Sir William


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Seddon, James


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Hurd, P. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Carr, W. T.
Jackson, Lt,-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)
Jameson, Major J. G.
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander


Cayzer, Major H. R.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Chadwick, R. Burton
Jesson, C.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Jodrell, N. P.
Stanton, Charles Butt


Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Starkey, Captain John Ralph


Clough, R.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stewart, Gershom


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Kidd, James
Sutherland, Sir William


Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
King, Commander Douglas
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead) 


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knights, Captain H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Waddington, R.


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Glasgow)
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Dean, Com. P. T.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Wardle, George J.


Dennis, J. W.
Long, Rt. Hen. Walter
Waring, Major Walter


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.
Lorden, John William
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Dockrell, Sir M.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Weston, Colonel John W.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lynn, R. J.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Du Cros, Sir Arthur Philip
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Whitla, Sir William


Edge, Captain William
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Mitchell, William Lane-
Williams, Lt-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Moles, Thomas
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Williams, Cal. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Morden, Colonel H. Grant
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Morris, Richard
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Forrest, W.
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Gange, E. S.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wolmer. Viscount


Ganzonl, Captain F. C.
Murray, Maj. C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)


Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Nall, Major Joseph
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Nelson, R. F. W. R.
Younger, Sir George


Gray, Major E.
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)



Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Oman, C. W. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.


Green, A. (Derby)
Pearce. Sir William
Talbot and Mr. Parker.


Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, V.
Royce, William Stapleton


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hayday, A.
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Bean, Captain W. (Leith)
Hayward, Major Evan
Sitch, C. H.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Calne)


Bramsden, Sir T.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Briant, F.
Holmes, J.
Spoor, B. G.


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E. C.


Cairns, John
Johnstone, J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Cape, Tom
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Casey, T. W.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Lunn, William
Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tootill, Robert


Edwards. C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Waterson, A. E.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Finney, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Richards. Rt. Hon. Thomas
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Roberts, F. 0. (W. Bromwich)



Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Robertson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.


Hallas, E.
Rose, Frank H
Hogge and Mr. Tyson Wilson

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."

Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."

The House divided: Ayes,67; Noes,224.

Division No. 118.
AYES.
[10.33 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayday, A.
Royce. William Stapleton


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon Arthur
Snort, A. (Wednesbury)


Berm, Captain W. (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, C. H.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Holmes, J.
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Bramsdon, Sir T.
Irving, Dan
Smith, W. (Wellingobrough)


Briant, F.
Johnstone, J.
Spoor, B. G.


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Swan, J. E. C.


Cairns, John
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Cape, Tom
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Casey, T. W.
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, Col. W. (Plaistow)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Tootill, Robert


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Bedwelity)
O'Grady, James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Finney, Samuel
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Williams, J (Gower, Glam.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Young. Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Robertson, J.



Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.


Hallas, E.
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.
Hogge and Mr. Tyson Wilson.


Hartshorn, V.




NOES


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)


Archdale, Edward M.
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Courthope, Major George Loyd


Armitage, Robert
Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.
Curzon, Commander Viscount


Astbury, Lieut.-Con'. F. W.
Bull, Right Hon. Sir William James
Davies, T. (Cirencester)


Atkey, A. R.
Burdon, Col. Rowland
Dean, Corn. P. T.


Baird, John Lawrence
Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Dennis, J. W.


Baldwin, Stanley
Burn, T. H. (Belfast)
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Butcher, Sir J. G.
Dockrell, Sir M.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Campion, Colonel W. R.
Doyle, N. Grattan


Barnston, Major H.
Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Du Cros, Sir Arthur Philip


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Carr, W. T.
Edge, Captain William


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Carter. R. A. D. (Manchester)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Bell, Lt.-Col. W C. H. (Devizes)
Cautley, Henry Strother
Elliot. Captain W. E. (Lanark)


Betterton, H. B.
Cayzer, Major H. R.
Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)


Blades, Sir George R.
Chadwick, R. Burton
Eyres-Monsell, Commander


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Fell, Sir Arthur


BlanceT. A.
Clough, R.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Boles, Lieut.-Colonel D. F.
Coats, Sir Stuart
FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.


Berwick, Major G. O.
Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.
Flannery. Sir J. Fortescue


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith
Cohen, Major J. B. B.
Forrest, W.


Brassey, H. L. C
Colfox, Major W. P.
Gange, E. S.


Breese, Major C. E.
Colvin. Brig.-General R. B.
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.


Brldgeman, William Clive
Conway. Sir W. Martin
Gardiner, J. (Perth)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Samuel, A.M. (Farnham, Surrey)


George, Rt. Han. David Lloyd
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Larder, John William
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Scot, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Lynn, R. J.
Seager, Sir William


Greame, Major P. Lloyd
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Seddon, James


Green, A. (Derby)
Macmaster, Donald
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Right Hon. John


Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Greig, Colonel James William
Macquisten, F. A.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro)
Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander


Gwynne, R. S.
Mitchell, William Lane
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Hacking, Captain D. H.
Moles, Thomas
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Preston)


Hailwood, A.
Melson, Major Jahn Elsdale
Stanton, Charles Butt


Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Hanna, G. B.
Morden, Colonel H. Grant
Stewart, Gershom


Hanson. Sir Charles
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Harmsworth, Cecil R. (Luton, Beds.)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Hennessy, Major G.
Mosley, Oswald
Surtess, Brig.-General H. C.


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Sutherland, Sir William


Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Murchison, C. K.
Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gerdon
Murray, Major C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)
Waddington, R.


Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Nall, Major Joseph
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke, Trent)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Nelson, R. F. W. R.
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hood, Joseph
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)
Wardle, George J.


Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Oman, C. W. C.
Waring, Major Walter


Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Pearce, Sir William
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Welgall, Lt.-Colonel W. E. G. A.


Hope, John Deans (Berwick)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Weston, Colonel John W.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Perring, William' George
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Pickering, Col. Emil W.
Whitla, Sir William


Horne, Slr Robert (Hillhead)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Wigan, Brig.-Gen, John Tyson


Howard, Major S. G.
Pratt, John William
Wild, Sir Ernest Edword


Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Preston, W. R.
Williams, Lt-Com. C (Tavistock)


Hurd, P. A.
Prescott, Major W. H.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Jameson, Major J. G.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Jephcott, A. R.
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Jenson, C.
Purchase, H. G.
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Jodrell, N. P.
Rae, H. Norman
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Raeburn, Sir William
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Ramsden, G. T.
Wolmer, Viscount


Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Wood, Major Hon. E, (Ripon)


Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyder


Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Reid, D. D.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Kidd, James
Remer, J. B.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


King, Commander Douglas
Renwick, G.
Young, Sir F.W. (Swindon)


Knights, Captain H.
Robinson S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Younger, Silr George


Lane-Fox, Major G. R.
Rodger, A. K.



Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Rothschild, Lionel de
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.


Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Rowlands, James
Talbot and Mr. Parker.


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund



Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL [Lords.]

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Removal of Disquali fication on Grounds of Sex.)

A person shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage from the exercise of any public function, including that of sitting and voting in the House of Lords, or from being appointed to or holding any civil or judicial office or post, or from entering or assuming or carrying on any civil profession or vocation, or for admission to any incorporated society (whether incorporated by Royal Charter or otherwise), and a person shall not be exempted by sex or marriage from the liability to serve as a juror:
Provided that—
(b) any judge, chairman of quarter sessions, recorder or other person before whom the case is heard may, in his discretion. on an application made by or on behalf of the parties (including in criminal cases the prosecution and the accused) or any of them, or at, his own instance, make an Order that having regard to the nature of the case, and the evidence to be given, the jury shall be composed of men only or of women only as the case may require, or may on an application made by a woman to be exempted from service on a jury in respect of any case by reason of the nature of the evidence to be given or of the issues to be tried, grant such exemption.
Any Order in Council made under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one clays on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it praying that the Order or any part thereof may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order
or that part thereof and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in paragraph (b), to leave out the words "the case is heard," and insert instead thereof the words "a case is or may be heard."
In the Committee stage I was invited to consider whether the words to which attention was called were words of limitation. After carefully considering the matter I have come to the conclusion that two Amendments must be made. The first is to insert words making it clear that an application in reference to a case may be made not merely at the time the case is heard but at another time.
Amendment agreed to.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in paragraph (b) to leave out the words "having regard to the nature of the case."
The hon. and learned Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Sir E. Hume-Williams) drew attention to the words "having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given" as limiting words. I think the probability is that those words would be construed as words of limitation. The sense of the, Committee was to leave the Clause as wide as possible, therefore I move to leave out the words in question.
Amendment agreed to.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to insert the words
Rules of court may be made as to the procedure to be adopted on any application under this Section relating to service on juries, and the Rules may require or authorise the application or any Order thereon to be made in interlocutory proceedings.
The purpose of this Amendment is in order to embody a suggestion made from more than one quarter in Committee that it should be possible to make application in various cases at what is called the interlocutory stage, that is, before the actual case comes into Court. It was pointed out that if the application was only made when the case was absolutely heard, a very heavy burden might he laid upon the jurors, because a larger number would have to be summoned in order to meet the possible eventuality of some being discarded under the discretionary power of the Section. For that purpose it is necessary that rules of Court should be made and I propose to add the
words in the Amendment, which give the usual power to make rules of Court.
Amendment agreed to.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
I desire to take this opportunity of removing a small misunderstanding that may have arisen upon some of the observations I made during the passage of the Bill through Committee last night. At that time I was dealing with the question of the proviso to Clause 1, and the question whether or not an Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Chelsea to insert a different proviso, or whether the one that I proposed should be inserted. Ultimately the Committee adopted the proposal that I made. In my speech I referred to certain passages in the Gladstone Report; the Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Gladstone which passed its Report in April this year. I referred to various passages for the purpose, as my words show, of indicating that at the time the question of the employment of women was in a fluid state, I said:
At the present time it is fair to say that the whole question of the employment of women is in a fluid state.
I then quoted three or four passages from the Gladstone Report, and went on to say, summarising all these passages:—
The upshot of that is that the employment of women is undergoing developments and that at the present there is no adequate experience upon which to base the conclusion that it would be safe to open the door, without any conditions at all, to men and women alike."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, cols. 369–370.]
I do not think that anybody who either heard these words, or who is good enough to read them, can fail to see that I was using the passages I did, not the conclusions of the Report, as supporting the view I was presenting to the House that the employment of women was in a fluid or experimental stage.
It has been suggested to me that any reference to the Gladstone Report might be taken as indicating that the Gladstone Report was something which stood as the embodiment of the intentions of the Government. I do not think that anything I said could possibly give colour to that view. I do not see that, looking at the words I used without considering how they were used—it was a mere reference to the passages of the Report—could pos-
sibly give rise to that interpretation. I desire to say that I had no intention of indicating that the Gladstone Report was to he put into operation or that it was to be taken as a final report on which the proposals or intentions of the Government were to be based. I used it simply for the purposes which are indicated in my speech. I have made inquiries, and I am quite clear that at the present time the Gladstone Report has not been adopted, and does not represent the final word on the matter. I have been asked to say that, in order to remove a possible misconstruction. I do it gladly. I only hope that those who heard me and read my speech will see that the purpose for which I used the Gladstone Report was entirely limited. I have taken this opportunity of making this explanation. I do not think I need say more in asking the House to give a Third Reading to this Bill, a Bill which I hope has removed, as far as possible, all the bars which previously existed and which it is desired to remove, and which has now freed women from the disqualifications on account of sex to the fullest extent it was the intention of the Committee to do. I have been very glad indeed to lend such service as I could to that end.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — WAR EMERGENCY LAWS (CONTINUANCE) [MONEY].

Committee to consider of making such provision as may become necessary by reason of the temporary continuance by any Act of the present Session to continue temporarily certain emergency enactments and. Regulations and to make provision with respect to the expiration of emergency enactments and instruments made thereunder, of the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914, and the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914 (Session 2) —(King's Recommendation signified) — Tomorrow.—[Mr. Long.)

Orders of the Day — LAND SETTLEMENT [SCOTLAND] [MONEY].

Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses that may be incurred by the Board of Agriculture for
Scotland in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the acquisition of land for the purposes of small holdings, reclamation and drainage, and other purposes relating to Agriculture in Scotland, to amend the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, and the enactments relating to allotments, and otherwise to facilitate land settlement in Scotland; and of authorising the issue to the Public Works Loan Commissioners out of the Consolidated Fund of sums not exceeding two million seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds for the purposes of such Act—(King's Recommendation signified) —To-morrow.— [Mr. Long.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — RUSSIA (BRITISH PRISONERS.)

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I rise to draw attention to the question of certain British officers and soldiers who, through no fault of their own, are prisoners of war in Moscow. The number, perhaps, is not large. There are twenty-three officers and seventy-seven other ranks of the Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force. Although the number is not large, their relatives are naturally in a state of anxiety about them, and if it is possible to have these men exchanged, the country and this House will agree that any steps to that end which can be taken should be taken. I put some questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon this matter before the House rose for the Recess, and he answered me, as lie always does, with very great courtesy, and gave me what information he possessed. On both occasions, when I inquired what steps were being taken, he told me that steps were being taken, and, when I interrogated him as to the channels used for the negotiations, he re plied, "By wireless telegraphy." On the second occasion I put a supplementary question as to whether he could not consider seeking the good offices of the Esthonian Government or the Roumanian Government which had been in negotiation with the Soviet Govern-
meat at Moscow in order that some direct channel should be used instead of relying upon wireless. My hon. Friend said that he would take that suggestion into consideration. Now, in reply to my question to-day, I am informed that negotiations are still taking place by wireless and that the Danish Government are taking certain steps to arrange a conference in Denmark, provided that the Soviet Government consent to certain conditions. I have a. suspicion that these conditions will be made irksome or impossible, and will be used to make further delay in this matter. I have good grounds for these reasons. I have had the privilege of speaking to a gentleman whom the lion. Gentleman knows all about, Mr. W. T. Goode, the head of a large college in London, who returned from Moscow three weeks ago. He informs me, first of all, that our men and officers are, on the whole, well treated. They are suffering privations in the way of food like the whole population of Moscow, but they are allowed considerable liberty. He saw officers playing tennis in one of the city squares. He informs me, as I have also gathered from other sources which I am quite prepared to give to the House, and gathered quite openly from such people as Mr. Goode, that the Soviet Government have been prepared, and are indeed anxious, to exchange these officers and men for the Russians that we have in our hands, and that their messages to that effect have been ignored. They have not been answered. There seems to be some reason for this, which, I think, should be explained to the House and to the country. There has been a continual coming and going, as the Prime Minister stated in the spring when speaking on the Russian situation, between this country and Paris and America and the territories under the Soviets in Russia. Could not some further steps have been taken to carry out this work of humanity of exchanging these prisoners? I said just now that my informants have said that these men are not harshly treated. Under the circumstances they are well treated and in good health, but naturally they want to get home and, equally naturally, their relatives in this country are in a considerable state of anxiety of mind about them. Now, I have two explanations for the delay. I will not suggest that there is any
bureaucratic obstruction, as it is usually known, in the Foreign Office, because I do not think that any official of the Foreign Office would be so callous as to allow mere matters of form to interfere with any work of humanity. But I think there has been a standing on their dignity on the part of the Foreign Office or certain officials against entering into negotiations with the Commissaries of the Soviet Government. They were prepared to negotiate through Lord Newton with the German Government for the exchange of our prisoners with Germany, but they cannot bring themselves to negotiate direct with these Commissaries because that might be twisted as meaning in law the recognition of them.
I cannot follow the argument myself, I am afraid that behind their minds there is that reason. Secondly, it has been stated to me again and again by people coming back from Russia — Englishmen and Americans whose names I am quite prepared to give to the House—that these Men are well treated, and that they may give accounts of the conditions in Russia which do not altogether coincide with the pictures of Russia under Soviet rule which the democracies in England, France, and elsewhere are led to believe exists. If that is the case, I hope we shall have an explanation. All I can say is that it is unfair to these men, to their relatives, and to the British public, and altogether shows a callousness that even five years of war do not excuse.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Coca Harmsworth): Do I understand my hon. and gallant Friend to suggest that one of the reasons for the delay in getting these men released is that the Government or anybody else is afraid of the glowing accounts that might be given of Bolshevism in Russia?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: My hon. Friend rather overstates what I said. I said I was afraid that there is the wish not to get the truth from Russia which our prisoners would give. We have had cases of that when other people came from. Russia, and attempts were made to silence them by keeping them under arrest and so on. But it has been put to me that on the face of it there is a primá facie case that the Government are not anxious—or, rather, that certain members of the Government
are not anxious—that these men should come back too soon, because their report might not coincide with what we are told from other sources. I do not think that they would give glowing accounts of what is going on in Russia, but they might not give accounts of that general world desolation which we are told in Government propaganda exists in Russia. I would like an assurance on this point, which has been put to me, and it seems, on the face of it, possible. I would like my hon. Friend to assure us that he has nothing to do with it. Perhaps he will explain why only the wireless has been used, why the good offices of the Roumanian and other Governments have not been used, and why, when Mr. Dukes, Mr. King, Mr. Goode, and others have been going backwards and forwards, their offices arc not sought? The interests of everyone concerned in the matter should be cleared up, and we should have an assurance that no question of diplomatic dignity or inconvenience of negotiation is interfering with the getting back of these men, with different accounts from those we usually hear of what is prevailing in Russia, and restoring them to their relatives as soon as possible.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am in a position to give my hon. and gallant Friend the two assurances lie asks for. I do not know from where he has been deriving his information, but the suggestion that the delay in securing release of our prisoners in Russia is due to any timidity on the part of His Majesty's Government., or any member of it—that these prisoners might give, let me say, a better account of Bolshevist rule than that which we arc accustomed to hear—I can assure him is without any foundation whatever. So much is it without any foundation that although I have paid a very great deal of attention to this matter the whole of this year, I never heard the suggestion made before in any other quarter. As to the Government or the Foreign Office standing on its dignity, I can give him an assurance in that regard also. There has been no standing on dignity. Communications by wireless have been constantly taking place between my Noble Friend, then acting Secretary and now Secretary of State, ever since the time when we ceased to have a Red Cross representative in Russia and there has been no delay of any kind or description on the part of the Foreign Office in replying to any communications
which have been sent to us by the Soviet Government. Perhaps I might give the facts of the case. There are about 100 prisoners of war in the hands of the Bolshevists, and as far as our information goes there are also about seventeen civilian prisoners. There is a certain number of British subjects of which the figure is not exactly known, who are in Russia, in -Moscow, and elsewhere, but are not in prison. At the beginning of this year we had in Russia Colonel Parker, an officer of the Red Cross, and he was instrumental in securing the exchange of eighteen British officers and men for two Russian naval officers. Towards the end of May the Soviet Government desired Colonel Parker to leave the country and he did so. A little later the Danish Red Cross, who have also been instrumental in assisting His Majesty's Government in connection with prisoners, left Russia. So that, when we had no longer any kind of representative in Russia, it was necessary to have recourse to the only means of communication at our disposal, namely, wireless telegraphy. In July the Soviet Government made a proposal to His Majesty's Government that a meeting should take place. I think their original suggestion was that the meeting should take place in this country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On, the frontier, I believe.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My recollection is that the first proposal was that the meeting should take place in this country. That suggestion was not found convenient. Proposals were then made that the meeting should take place in Denmark. The Danish Government agreed, but they made certain stipulations. To some of these stipulations the Bolshevist Government took exception on the score that they were derogatory. Further negotiations ensued, and I am glad to be able to state that it seems as if this meeting would now successfully take place; and I should like myself, if I may do so, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to put on record our sense of deep obligation to the Danish Government for their good offices in this very difficult matter. I hope that. within a very short time from now two small Commissions, one representing His Majesty's Government, and the other representing the Soviet Government, will be in Denmark; and I hope, further, that the basis of
negotiations will be the exchange of all prisoners of war in the hands of either party.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How many have we got?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: We have nearly 150. I should add that His Majesty's Government are very willing to facilitate the return of all Russian civilians to Russia who may desire to go back. As the House will be aware from the answer given today, we have sought to secure the welfare and comfort of our prisoners in Russia by making strenuous representations to the Soviet Government. If the news which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given us is correct I am exceedingly glad to hear it, and I should add that we have a British friend in Moscow, the Rev. Mr. North, a British chaplain who is doing everything in his power for the welfare of our prisoners. I do not think it would he advantageous to go at any greater length into this matter, or, if I may suggest to the House, to engage in any lengthy debate upon it. It is an exceedingly difficult question, and the only object we all have is to secure as early as possible the return of our prisoners. It is quite conceivable that an awkward or unfortunate expression, or an angular turn in this Debate, might serve as a destruction of the object we have in view. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House that this matter has been considered by the Foreign Office and by the Government from every point of view throughout this year, throughout the earlier part of the Session, throughout the Recess,
and at all times with the sole object of securing the earliest possible return of our prisoners. Of course, innumerable representations are made to us by the friends and relatives of those who were in Russia. They come to us at the Foreign Office, and we could not possibly be unaware of the anxiety of the families of the prisoners in regard to their relatives in Russia. I can only say that in my judgment, and I have had much to do with this matter, that everything that could be done has been done by His Majesty's Government, and I can assure the House that we have not spared any effort, and will not spare any effort, until we secure the return of everyone of these men to their homes. I would add that if the hon and gallant Gentleman or any other hon. Member of this House will suggest any better or more expeditious means which we can adopt, I shall give any such suggestions the fullest consideration.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could the hon. Gentleman say where the Bolshevists we have got are: being kept and whether they are being treated with the greatest possible consideration, as they are not prisoners of war?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot answer that question on the spur of the moment, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that they are being treated with that humane consideration which British people always show to prisoners of war.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.